On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:11:57 +0200, "Geert Stappers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:44:20AM -0600, Beverly Davis wrote, > in a off-list message: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:57:28 +0200, "Geert Stappers" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 09:21:01AM -0600, Beverly Davis wrote: > > > > Package: html-xml-utils > > > > Version: 3.6 > > > > Section: web > > > > Priority: optional > > > > License: W3C Software Notice and License > > > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 > > > > > > How does that comply with DFSG? > > > > I'm new to this, but I think that it does comply. It is quite similar > > to the BSD lisence which is explictly stated to comply with the DFSG. > > > > Besides the license itself, here's some more information that might > > help. > > > > Amaya (the W3C's HTML editor and browser) is released under a very > > similar license (an old version of the same) and is in Debian main. > > http://packages.debian.org/stable/web/amaya > > > > The W3C claims that it's an OSI certified > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/W3C.php > > and GPL compatible > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses > > > > The W3C provides a FAQ about their licenses which might help > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#Software > > > > The only thing I wondered about is the non-advertising clause. Is this > > a problem? > > This message is now back on -mentors > Here are more eye-balls, but it could be, that you have to ask > [email protected] (please avoid cross-posting) > for advice on "non-advertising clause"
I searched the mailinglist archives and found that someone had already asked about this license. The one response they got said that it looked DFSG-free. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01696.html > > Cheers > Geert Stappers > Regards, Beverly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
