Re: CMU Sphinx licence thread from January..
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:01:04PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> I just started looking at Sphinx, and I'd remembered a bit of discussion
> about the license CMU used. I did a mailing list search on "sphinx" just
> now back the past 4 quarters of the archive, and the only thing that
> turned up was that section 4 of the license passed the Open Source
> guidelines but wasn't sure if it passed the Debian guidelines. Anyway, I
> was looking over the license and it looks to me that section 5 is a ringer
> for the BSD "advertising" clause.
> Do section 4 or 5 place Sphinx into non-free? I'm pretty sure 5 does but
> I'd like it confirmed.
The name change requirement (4) and acknowledgement requirement (5) are both
OK as far as the DFSG are concerned.