Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
Hm, I could have sworn that the DFSG predated the Constitution and hence
predated the existence of the three-clause BSD license. UCB dropped the
advertising clause in July of 1999 and the DFSG were adopted in July of
1997 according to Wikipedia. Hence, I assumed the BSD license as referred
to in the DFSG must, regardless of what the web site currently links to,
actually refer to the 4-clause license since that's the only thing that
existed at the time.
Am I missing something?
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>