Re: Revision 4 of DFSG

[Gregor Hoffleit <flight@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de>]

Now for something different:

> 4.5. Example Licenses 
> ----------------------
> 
>      As examples, we consider the following licenses DFSG-free: 
> 
>         * the Artistic License 
> 
>         * the BSD License 
> 
>         * the MIT/X Consortium License 
> 
>         * the GNU General Public License (GPL) 
> 
>         * the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL) 
> 
>         * the Mozilla Public License (MPL) 
> 
>         * the Q Public License (QPL)
> 
>      <This list is a list of possibilities. Before the document would be
>      released, the list would be modified to mention the licenses that
>      truly do fit> 


www.gnu.org has an RMS article about the evil BSD advertisment
clause. IIRC, he referred to the XFree86 license as an truly free
license, while the old BSD license with the advertisment clause was
depreciated. His reasonsing was that one should avoid the terms
"BSD-like license" and instead use XFree86 as an example, since some
BSD licenses are evil.

I guess the same reasoning holds for the X Consortium License (or how
did they call this evil, new license for X11R6.4 ?).

Perhaps we could mention this problem with the advertisment clause
here, and add XFree86 to the list ? There were no problems with any
XFree86 license, so it's reasonable to say that the XFree86 license is 
a good template for a free license.

	Gregor