Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:21:40AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> I doubt it. RMS's REAL reason is that it isn't his GPL.
The real reason is that it's unclear and subject to differing
interpretations. If possible, we should either get a quick note from the
author saying what we want to do would be OK for anyone to do, or get them
to re-release under the clarified artistic license. (See
<http://www.appwatch.com/license/ncftp-3.0.2.txt>).
> Look at how many
> unequivocally free licenses fall under his definition of non-free. Hell
> the most free license in existence, the original BSD "do whatever you
> want, just don't bother us or plagiarize" license was considered by RMS to
> be non-free.
>
The original BSD license (with the obnoxious advertising clause) is listed
under GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses at
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses>.
Note that UCB has given everyone a permenant grant of permission to ignore
and omit the advertising clause in software where they're the copyright
holder. For those programs, the license is now both Free and GPL compatible.
--
Brian Ristuccia
brian@ristuccia.com
bristucc@cs.uml.edu
Reply to: