The publicity clause can be considered as a use restriction, and some people also complained about the choice of venue. Those problems have been raised upstream, but (last time I checked) didn't receive a response.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/07/msg00024.html Am Dienstag, 26. Februar 2013 schrieb Colin Watson : > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 03:46:34PM -0600, Ted Gould wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 19:13 +0100, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals > > wrote: > > > The English Voxforge models are currently packaged in julius-voxforge. > > > There I did go with the nightly builds there, since in addition to the > > > time and disk size (which IMHO is already enough of a reason), it > > > needed HTK to build, which is not redistributable. It'd also be > > > interested in more opinions though. > > > > Yes, thanks for doing that! We found it early on and it created some > > very good results. But yes, Julius does have redistribution problems. > > But the library being 4-clause BSD and the tools. > > 4-clause BSD (i.e. with the advertising clause) isn't a distribution > problem in itself; from a brief glance at the copyright file I couldn't > work out why it was in multiverse. Does anyone have background on that? > > However, 4-clause BSD is incompatible with the GPL. We could grant an > exception for Canonical-owned code, but we'd then have to make sure we > never used any external GPL code. It probably wouldn't be worth the > hassle. > > -- > Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] > > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel > -- Siegfried
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
