This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: > John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > > The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD > > + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the > > current policy on that sort of license is. > > Accepted but unpopular.
This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow the DFSG. > I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws. I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere. > I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this > licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that. I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license. I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it. Neither of these are freeness issues. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
