Re: html-xml-utils, License: W3C Software Notice and License
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:11:57 +0200, "Geert Stappers"
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:44:20AM -0600, Beverly Davis wrote,
> in a off-list message:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:57:28 +0200, "Geert Stappers"
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 09:21:01AM -0600, Beverly Davis wrote:
> > > > Package: html-xml-utils
> > > > Version: 3.6
> > > > Section: web
> > > > Priority: optional
> > > > License: W3C Software Notice and License
> > > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
> > >
> > > How does that comply with DFSG?
> > I'm new to this, but I think that it does comply. It is quite similar
> > to the BSD lisence which is explictly stated to comply with the DFSG.
> > Besides the license itself, here's some more information that might
> > help.
> > Amaya (the W3C's HTML editor and browser) is released under a very
> > similar license (an old version of the same) and is in Debian main.
> > http://packages.debian.org/stable/web/amaya
> > The W3C claims that it's an OSI certified
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/W3C.php
> > and GPL compatible
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
> > The W3C provides a FAQ about their licenses which might help
> > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620#Software
> > The only thing I wondered about is the non-advertising clause. Is this
> > a problem?
> This message is now back on -mentors
> Here are more eye-balls, but it could be, that you have to ask
> email@example.com (please avoid cross-posting)
> for advice on "non-advertising clause"
I searched the mailinglist archives and found that someone had already
asked about this license. The one response they got said that it looked
> Geert Stappers