On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:22:07 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: > Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > Or is the copyright holder's intent that the acknowledgement be clearly > > visible to every recipient, even those who receive a non-source form of > > the work? The latter would be a non-free restriction, like the obnoxious > > advertising clause in the older BSD licenses. > > The obnoxious advertising clause is DFSG-free. The license mentioned > in DFSG #10 was originally the BSD with advertising clause. > > http://web.archive.org/web/19990210065944/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license Indeed, AFAICT, the obnoxious advertising clause of the 4-clause BSD license has been regarded as acceptable for a long time by the Debian Project. I agree that it is obnoxious, and I would recommend anyone against adopting a license that includes such a clause. Nonetheless, the Debian Project does not consider it as a non-free clause. As far as clause 5 in the CMU LTI Licence (which is under analysis here) is concerned, I don't especially like it, but I don't have a strong opinion on its acceptability. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/progs/scripts/pdebuild-hooks.html Need some pdebuild hook scripts? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpx22mWc2QWb.pgp
Description: PGP signature