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

non-freeness of 4-clause BSD license (was: The QPL licence)

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause, 
> > which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern --- 
> > to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other 
> > software, for example.]
> It does seem beyond basic copyright, and in EULA/contract territory.

I agree, which is why I think we need to rid Debian main of all
occurences of the 4-clause BSD license.

I filed many bugs about this years ago, so that the impact of passing a
change to the DFSG that would unambiguously regard the
forced-advertising clause of the old BSD license as non-free.

Some of the bugs still open on this subject are:


G. Branden Robinson                |     Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     when I stop believing in it.
branden@debian.org                 |     -- Philip K. Dick
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: