Re: BCFG Public License

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Walter Landry said:
> > Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > > > John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> 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.

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu