On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:34:27PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:09:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: > >> > > As said, it is mostly the plain X/MIT licence, so if it is non-free, we are in > > deep trouble. Please go ahead and fill the bug report asking for the removal > > of XFree86 from debian/main. > > No, it's quite different. The Dawes license says: > > DD> Except as contained in this notice, the name of the copyright holder(s) > DD> and author(s) shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote > DD> the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written > DD> authorization from the copyright holder(s) and author(s). > > [...] This is a boilerplate licence. There is no canonical MIT/X11 licence, there are about four. This is one of them -- maybe the DEC one. Either way, massive chunks of X are under this licence. > It's not just non-free; it's not practical to work with such > restricted software. I hope you're not particularly attached to X. -- Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org> Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature