Le Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 04:00:45PM +0100, Penny Leach a écrit : > > Furthermore, the new debian/copyright policy [1] doesn't mention Modified > BSD at all - it just references BSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD.
Dear Penny, first of all let me just clarify that DEP-5 is only a proposal now, and that it can be subjected to many changes before it is accepted. One of the changes that I would like to propose when I have enough time to draft a patch, is to introduce a syntax for licenses ‘similar to’ other licenses, when they were derived from a very common license by only changing some people, company or brand names. As Don explained, there is only one BSD license, the one where the regents of the university of California are coyright holders. And since they used their copy rights to change the license in the past, there is no program that is licensed under the ‘old BSD’ license. Nevertheless, there are some that have license similar to it, and were not affected by the removal of the advertisement clause because the copyright holder is not the same. Whichever solution is adopted in DEP-5 to underline that license A is derived from license B, unless your program is part of the BSD distribution and is copyright by the regents of the university of California, you can not use the copy in /usr/share/common-license and have to include it verbatim. Luckily, it is short :) Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
