Re: what license is ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 26 Sep 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 20:17, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
>> This is the (in)famous advertising clause. [...]
>> It does not prevent the program from being
>> DFSG-free, [...]
>
>How does it not violate DFSG 9?
>
You are on one today, aren't you? First, the Sun codicil to the OpenSSL
license (4-clause BSD warmed over) is okay, but the OpenSSL/4-clause
BSD/libevent license isn't?! My question is how can the Sun codicil be
okay when it states the following?
*
* The Contribution is licensed pursuant to the OpenSSL open source
* license provided above.
*
Either the 4-clause BSDL violates DFSG 9 or it doesn't. However, it
really doesn't matter, as DFSG 10 overrides IMHO (yeah, yeah, Mr.
Bushnell, we've been over whether DFSG 10 overrides the rest before, and
this isn't the time and place for it), and DFSG 10 specifically mentions
the [4-clause] BSD license as free (note that in the metadata of the DFSG,
the DFSG predates UCB's modification, so the 3-clause BSDL didn't exist as
such then, so BSD means 4-clause BSD).
My hat is off to you: rarely has someone so successfully argued both sides
of an issue in 17 minutes flat.
- --
The early worm gets the bird.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQE9k3yT+ZSKG3nWr3ARAoIHAJ0XvF12Zaq5feJuMjzwZbhwjsGM6ACdGl3a
pQb+aua20CdRWphKaoeG6jE=
=2GMG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: