Hi, sorry that I answer so late but I was privately and professionally under time pressure.
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 14:59, Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote: > >> Background of question 3 is that someone on the list might have an >> idea >> which other license could be acceptable to Sun (and I might suggest >> it to >> the developer). > > msv itself is under the new three-point BSD license plus a nuclear > facility acknowledgement. Is there a particular reason why Sun isn't > licensing the msv extensions under the same license? You tell me :-) More seriously, it's more or less the same license but with also bits of this and that licenses (e.g. the old Sun license). BTW, the nuclear facility acknowledgement seems as well to be an issue. >From ftpmaster: "rejected, this must go to non-free. ------- You acknowledge that Software is not designed,licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility. ------- The word licensed in that sentence makes it non-free, the rest would be just some blabber." Cheers, Eric -- You don't need to CC me on debian-java, debian-mentors and pkg-java-maintainers. Please CC me on other Debian lists. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
