> >> Anyway, could you explain to me how this advertising clause is so > harmful? > > > > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. > > Ok, this helps. I am still at a loss why we mention BSD as one of the "free" > licenses in DFSG, and have no mention of this problem there. I'll try to > contact Moxa about this problem, but I doubt a successful outcome, since I > think they really want to get some publicity out of making their software free > one way or another. > > Am I correct that this clause doesn't make software really non-free (DFSG > definition) ? Or am I missing something obvious in DFSG? If you ask RMS, MANY licenses are not "free enough", including BSD, Artistic, and others. DFSG is not free enough for him, yet you can do more with one of the other licenses. Interesting how that works out. RMS is pushing an ideal more than anything.
Attachment:
pgpnYWHYhDQ9a.pgp
Description: PGP signature