On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:39:33PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > The first three paragraphs look like a BSD licence to me, paragraph four > is a personal rant from the authors. Apart from the obvious (remove > everything following "no x86-only assembly code..."), what else would be > needed to make this a valid licence suitable for inclusion into > non-free? > > I can see: > > - it is not specified to whom you need to provide source > - "You may not turn this..." would be implied in the next sentence > - the bit about portability is pretty vague. > > I'm going to try to convince the authors to use the GPL, but given their > aversion to OSS "politics" I'm not sure that will work. :/
Try to convince them to use BSD, which would only imply removing their crappy addition to it. That rant has nothing to do in a license text. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
