[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG claims BSD, not BSD 2/3-clause, is DFSG-free

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:36:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> writes:
> > Something that _can_ easily be changed (afaik) is that the DFSG[1]
> > states that
> >   'The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
> > we consider free.'
> > It's quite obvious that this refers to 2- and 3- clause BSD, not
> > 4-clause BSD.
> It is?
> The 4-clause BSD license is also DFSG-free.  We have a bunch of 4-clause
> BSD licensed software in the archive.

The GPL incompatability might have tricked folks who aren't carefully
reading into thinking it's not free.

Either way, there's a more general point about DFSG 10, which has been
brought up a few times (usually by folks who assume the DFSG is the letter
of the law, whereas they're actually guidelines.)

My 2c,

 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: