On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 14:13, MJ Ray wrote: > The intent seems to be to create a weak-copyleft-default licence that > looks like the BSD one. I think it is GPL-incompatible for the same > reasons as the old BSD licence (so pay attention when using it), but I > think it may be DFSG-free. No, it doesn't have an advertising clause that I could find. Instead, it has its own copyleft which of course conflicts with the GPL's copyleft... Sort of...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part