Thanks for the wdiff files. None of the parts commented on previously seem to have changed much, so I agree that each piece of software under this licence should be checked. Key things to look at are the extent of the "descriptive text" claimed for section 3.3 and what venue terms are given in the notice. The venue part of the licence (section 9) may actually be worse in 1.0 than in the draft, but it depends on the notice.
In my opinion, the licence does not follow the DFSG if there are active patents on the Covered Software. I note Matthew Garrett's comment about identification, but I'm not sure if 3.2 means the notice must identify You against your wishes. In short, I think it's not nice, but maybe could meet DFSG. A *lot* better than old Solaris licences, as Stuart noticed. > I am not going to package any software under that license. I just want > to know, if installing, running and using software under such license is > ethically right thing to do. If it's not about debian, it's probably off-topic for debian-legal. I'll stop here and suggest you discuss user ethics on gnu.misc.discuss or similar. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
