Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Adrian Bunk <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:36:29PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I'd happily update http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ but I can't
> > see how it makes it sounds as if 4-clause BSD wouldn't meet DFSG. Can
> > you clarify?
> Licenses currently found in Debian main include:
> This excludes the unmodified BSD License.
> If the 4-clause BDS License is considered to meet the DFSG, then this
> should be something like "4-clause, 3-clause and 2-clause BSD License".
> Or just "BSD License".
The linked common licence is the modified BSD licence AFAIK, so I
don't feel that either of those would be accurate. I've added the
unmodified BSD licence with its own entry, along the lines of the wiki
description. I'm pretty sure it's in debian.
I've also removed some obsolete "work in progress", added directions
on searching the list archive, current packages and the REJECT FAQ and
changed a few wordings slightly. Diff is at
Hope that helps,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct