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

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

> 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

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

Reply to: