Yes, I was aware of the problem and understood it quite clearly. The s/w is clearly free software so I'm sure it will stay. It is merely a question of what s/w we want to include or not. It is there so it will likely stay put, but do we want to accept new s/w with similar type licences? These licences can cause compatibility problems, so will we be in the habit of accepting them in the future? I simply did not want to make any assumptions so decided to pose the question. Lee P.S The above questions are now all rhetorical.
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 22:44 +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote: > Lee McCafferty wrote: > > > > [...] but contains a version of the "obnoxious BSD advertising > > clause" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html). [...] Do we > > consider this to be a problem or not? > > If you read this article carefully, it talks about a practical problem > that is particularly inconvenient for distributions. There is no > doubt that the Original BSD license is a free software license > (although not recommended because of this clause which also makes it > GPL-incompatible). > > If the article is not clear and fails to convey this information, > please write to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, possibly describing what lead > to this confusion. > > P.S. Wishlist: It would be very nice if the "PVF" folks stop sending > messages in HTML. It may appear to you that it's fancier and more > helpful to the readers, but the reality is exactly the opposite. > > > > _______________________________________________ > gNewSense-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
