Re: BCFG Public License
Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > Accepted but unpopular.
>
> This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would
> be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow
> the DFSG.
I am following the DFSG and I feel it is best to point out when
something is close to the edge, or is something accepted but
many dislike.
> > I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff about US laws.
>
> I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere.
Then why continue the discussion of it here?
> > I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US Government - this
> > licence looks like it's not complete without knowing that.
>
> I don't see any rights reserved by the US government in that license.
Exactly. They are referenced in section 2, but not identified. If
there are no such rights, why are they mentioned?
> I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government and the standard
> no warranty clause extended to the US government, but that's it.
> Neither of these are freeness issues.
Section 2 does not say that all rights of the USG are in this licence.
I don't know whether it's a freeness issue or not, as it's incomplete.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: