Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> writes:
> Simon, I would like to thank you for your effort in this struggle
> against non-free IETF documents in Debian (main).
> I really appreciate the time that you're dedicating to improving Debian
> from this point of view! :)
> Good job!
Thanks, that helps me going. :)
>> If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, such
>> as the revised BSD license, the GPL, the MIT/X11 license, that
>> is also fine.
> I think it would be better if you explicitly gave reference URLs for the
> cited licenses.
> Moreover, it seems that a good URL for the X11 license is not easy to
> find (there used to be a copy at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html,
> but it disappeared; there used to be another copy at
> but it had vanished too, last time I checked).
> And some people claim that there is no single "X11" license, since many
> slightly different variants have been used for parts of XFree86 and
> Consequently, I would rather suggest the Expat/MIT license, which is
> clearer and less ambiguous.
> The reference to the 3-clause BSD license should also made clearer.
> These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing:
> | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the
> | following ones are also fine:
> | * the 3-clause BSD license
> | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html
> | * the GNU GPL version 2
> | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt
> | * the Expat/MIT license
> | http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
I agree, and please update the wiki page with this. (I can do it on
Monday otherwise, when I also intend to file the bug reports.)
Btw, one variant of the "MIT License" is described at:
As far as I'm aware, there is no canonical organization or similar
behind the MIT license, so it is difficult to find out whether we are
using the correct term for the correct license.