On Saturday 09 September 2006 21:30, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >while in RFS-phase of the package tstat has come out that file > >``erf.c'' has licence near to BSD, and that its 4th clause is on the > >edge to accepted in Debian (see this thread > > This is bullshit, a four clauses BSD-like license is totally free and
Even being ugly it is still free and this is what has been discussed there. > even raised as an example of free licenses in the DFSG. This is wrong. This http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license is not 4-clause BSD license, since the obnoxious 3rd clause is removed: 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. > There are practical reasons which make advertisement clauses undesirable, > but this does not mean that the BSD license is any less "accepted" than > other free licenses. > > OTOH you have a different problem: a four clauses BSD-like license is > not compatible with GPL-licensed code, and this means that the package > is not distributable at all. AFACT, this was the main concern discussed there. > >http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/08/msg00201.html on > >debian-mentors for discussion about it). > > It's annoying that clueless people are advising our new developers. > Some flaming may be needed. Please avoid. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
