Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:36:29PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
I'd happily update http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ but I can't
see how it makes it sounds as if 4-clause BSD wouldn't meet DFSG. Can
you clarify?
[...]
Licenses currently found in Debian main
* MJ Ray:
The linked common licence is the modified BSD licence AFAIK, so I
don't feel that either of those would be accurate. I've added the
unmodified BSD licence with its own entry, along the lines of the wiki
description. I'm pretty sure it's in debian.
Yes, the DFSG originally referred
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote:
Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly?
Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence would not
meet the DFSG.
I'd happily update http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:36:29PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote:
Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly?
Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence would not
meet the
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
- both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in
/usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising
clause in its exact wording
Does
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
No.
Even the FSF considers it free.
--
.''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
- both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in
/usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
I don't think this holds. The advertising clause in the 4-clause BSD
license is GPL incompatible according to ('Original BSD
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:23:56PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
No.
Ah, OK.
Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
Even the FSF considers it free.
The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free...
They clearly don’t consider it as a free software license. The FSF
argues that documentation doesn’t need the same freedoms as
10 matches
Mail list logo