Re: Intent to package moxa radius

To: Igor Grobman <igor@digicron.com>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Intent to package moxa radius
From: James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Apr 1998 12:42:46 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] dmmra2okbm1.fsf@dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk>
In-reply-to: Igor Grobman's message of "Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:09:02 -0300"
References: <[🔎] 199804222309.TAA02785@hmm.nowhere>

Igor Grobman <igor@digicron.com> writes:

> Am I correct that this clause doesn't make software really non-free
> (DFSG definition)?

Yes.  To quote from the DFSG itself:

|   10. Example Licenses
|        The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses
|        that we consider "free".

Let's please end this FUD now; the advertising clause is extremely
obnoxious but it doesn't make software non-free.

-- 
James

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Intent to package moxa radius
  - From: Igor Grobman <igor@digicron.com>

Prev by Date: Re: signals and atomicity
Next by Date: Re: signals and atomicity
Previous by thread: Re: Intent to package moxa radius
Next by thread: Re: Intent to package moxa radius
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread