Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran <email@example.com> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said:
> > Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > > > John Goerzen <email@example.com> asked:
> > > > > The BCFG public license (below) seems pretty much like a standard BSD
> > > > > + advertising clause license. I can't quite seem to remember what the
> > > > > current policy on that sort of license is.
> > > >
> > > > Accepted but unpopular.
> > >
> > > This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation.
> > It is true that the DFSG endorses it without reservation. The DFSG
> > was written in 1997 and specifically mentions the BSD license, while
> > the advertising clause was not removed until 1999.
> > However, it is still unpopular for many good reasons.
> I understand that many people are unhappy with the advertising clause.
> I just think that when a list is asked a question in it's capacity as
> arbiters of licenses for Debian, it is unhelpful to the OP to respond
> with an answer based on personal feelings that conflict with what is so
> clearly laid out in the DFSG.
Debian-legal often gives advice beyond what is required. For example,
the DFSG says nothing about license proliferation. Would you have
debian-legal refrain from telling people to use standard licenses?
It is not like the original response ("Accepted but unpopular") was
incorrect. It is accepted, but it is also unpopular.