Re: Licence for a file in tstat: is it compatible with Debian?
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> This is not relevant, since the advertising clause was removed well
> after the DFSG was written.
It was removed from the Berkeley licensed works after the DFSG was
written, but FreeBSD had already removed it from all of the works
which their members had copyrights upon in 1996.[1] (The DFSG being
ratified in June 1997.)
> Also, a 3-clause BSD license is usually called "MIT license" (or
> "X11 license") to remark the difference with the original BSD
> license. Even if it actually *is* the new BSD license, the file name
> on www.debian.org is misleading.
No, it is called (as you called it) a "3-clause BSD license", or by
the pedantic "BSD license with clause three removed".[2] The MIT,
expat and X11 licenses are totally different licenses. Conflating them
only leads to confusion when someone actually reads the licenses in
question. Please don't perpetuate it. [It is true, however, that when
recommending a non-copyleft free license that one should recommend the
X11, MIT, or Expat licenses instead of the BSD to avoid this
confusion.]
Don Armstrong
1: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
2: Sometimes also the "revised BSD license"
--
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
-- Woody Allen
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: