Re: Change in ispell's copyright -> nonfree?
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shalehperry@attbi.com> writes:
Z> On 11-Dec-2001 David Coe wrote:
> > Upstream ispell 3.2.x has made the following change in its copyright
> > (compared to 3.1.20, which we currently distribute).
> >
> > This sounds nonfree to me; am I wrong? If he were to change that
> > "must" to a "should," would it then be DFSG-compliant? If not, what
> > changes would you suggest?
> >
>
> nah, this is just a stronger version of the apache advert clause it seems.
> Debian is exempt as are most people who would actually use and ship ispell
> (word processors, mail clients, etc).
Agreed. However, it does of course keep it GPL-incomptable (for the
same reasons as the noxious BSD advertising clause).
Reply to: