Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered
> by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of
> least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable
> licenses in the DFSG.
The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable
DFSG <URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract> §10:
10. Example Licenses
The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
we consider free.
That text isn't specific about *which* "BSD license" is an example of
a free license.
However, in that text, the term 'BSD' is an anchor to
<URL:http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license>, which is a copy of the
3-clause BSD license, without advertising clause. That seems explicit
that it's the version given as an example of a free license.
It would perhaps be better for the DFSG to disambiguate "BSD license"
in the text of the DFSG, but the hyperlink to the 3-clause BSD license
without advertising clause serves the purpose in this instance.
\ “It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in |
`\ trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so.” —Artemus |
_o__) Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist |