Re: Licence for a file in tstat: is it compatible with Debian?
On Saturday 09 September 2006 21:30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> >while in RFS-phase of the package tstat has come out that file
> >``erf.c'' has licence near to BSD, and that its 4th clause is on the
> >edge to accepted in Debian (see this thread
> This is bullshit, a four clauses BSD-like license is totally free and
Even being ugly it is still free and this is what has been discussed there.
> even raised as an example of free licenses in the DFSG.
This is wrong. This http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
is not 4-clause BSD license, since the obnoxious 3rd clause is removed:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
> There are practical reasons which make advertisement clauses undesirable,
> but this does not mean that the BSD license is any less "accepted" than
> other free licenses.
> OTOH you have a different problem: a four clauses BSD-like license is
> not compatible with GPL-licensed code, and this means that the package
> is not distributable at all.
AFACT, this was the main concern discussed there.
> >http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/08/msg00201.html on
> >debian-mentors for discussion about it).
> It's annoying that clueless people are advising our new developers.
> Some flaming may be needed.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB