On Sat, 09 Sep 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote: > This is not relevant, since the advertising clause was removed well > after the DFSG was written.
It was removed from the Berkeley licensed works after the DFSG was written, but FreeBSD had already removed it from all of the works which their members had copyrights upon in 1996.[1] (The DFSG being ratified in June 1997.) > Also, a 3-clause BSD license is usually called "MIT license" (or > "X11 license") to remark the difference with the original BSD > license. Even if it actually *is* the new BSD license, the file name > on www.debian.org is misleading. No, it is called (as you called it) a "3-clause BSD license", or by the pedantic "BSD license with clause three removed".[2] The MIT, expat and X11 licenses are totally different licenses. Conflating them only leads to confusion when someone actually reads the licenses in question. Please don't perpetuate it. [It is true, however, that when recommending a non-copyleft free license that one should recommend the X11, MIT, or Expat licenses instead of the BSD to avoid this confusion.] Don Armstrong 1: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html 2: Sometimes also the "revised BSD license" -- More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
