On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 14:17, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net> writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:15:09AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > >> Brian, stop calling the MIT and 3 clause BSD licenses non-free. If > >> anyone needed evidence that debian-legal has become overreaching and > >> useless, it's here. > > > > Please note that is not a consensus here. > > The BSD license is DFSG-free because the DFSG explicitly states > that it is free. The DFSG was written long before UC removed the > advertising clause, so this is the version of the BSD license > that the DFSG references. We're talking about the last clause in the X license, or the 3rd clause in the 3-clause BSD license. Neither of these has an advertising clause. The advertising clause is not involved in this at all; the removal of the advertising clause is not relevant. I suspect not realizing what clauses are being discussed is a major cause of confusion on this list, and I'm not sure how to deal with it besides beating people over the head with licenses and existing threads (which they don't seem to read anyway). -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part