Le Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:16:26AM +0100, Harald Jenny a écrit : > > I also thought about this but as the license text for the University of > California differes slightly from the one of Petr Rehor I wasn't sure this is > the correct way to do it - I also thought about:
Oops, I missed this as the first and the last BSD texts were identical… > Files: * > Copyright: 2005, Petr Rehor <r...@rx.cz> > License: BSD-1 > > Files: compat/fts_compat.h, compat/daemon.c, compat/mkdtemp.c, > compat/fts_open.c > Copyright: 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, The Regents of the University of > California > License: BSD > LICENSE TEXT FROM California > > Files: debian/* > Copyright: 2009-2011, Harald Jenny <har...@a-little-linux-box.at> > License: BSD-1 > > License: BSD-1 > LICENSE TEXT FROM Petr Rehor > > As I'm not sure how detailed the exact wording of the license text must be > preserved I wanted to be on the safe side but when it's ok to just use the > amavisd-milter License stanza also for the University of California this is > for > sure better... what's the list's opinion on this? That is a good point. My personal impression (but not really an informed opinion: I am ready to change my mind if I hear good arguments), is that if the license text is not identical to the reference BSD license, then it is not the BSD license. Note that if you pick BSD-1 as a keyword, it looks like a versionned short name. How about BSD-like ? Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110218110358.ge...@merveille.plessy.net
