On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:28:46AM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 05:53, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:23:45AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 00:23 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:Does having it sit in the source (and not build it) present any problems? I don't think so, since the BSD-4 stuff does not mix with the GPL-2 stuff.Its kind of grey if this is ok. The license seems to say that the advertising clause would only take effect if the file is used in the software, not just distributed as is. But its not very clear to me.Your question is right, Felipe, but the problem is not GPL compatibility (which kicks in only for binary code). The problem is with DFSG not allowing to redistribute code containing the advertising clause of BSD-4.How did you arrive at this conclusion? AFAIK, BSD-4 has no problems with the DFSG.
Stupid me, I had it upside-down: BSD-4 is DFSG compliant, but conflicts with GPL.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers