[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another extended BSD licence :-/

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:39:33PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> The first three paragraphs look like a BSD licence to me, paragraph four
> is a personal rant from the authors. Apart from the obvious (remove
> everything following "no x86-only assembly code..."), what else would be
> needed to make this a valid licence suitable for inclusion into
> non-free?
> I can see:
>  - it is not specified to whom you need to provide source
>  - "You may not turn this..." would be implied in the next sentence
>  - the bit about portability is pretty vague.
> I'm going to try to convince the authors to use the GPL, but given their
> aversion to OSS "politics" I'm not sure that will work. :/

Try to convince them to use BSD, which would only imply removing their
crappy addition to it. That rant has nothing to do in a license text.


Reply to: