On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 17:59 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > FreeBSD is not a license. On looking into this further. This does indeed look like the FreeBSD license. The BSD license has three points where the third is: "3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission." In the copyright notice for this package[0], this third point is missing. On the GNU license list[1] for the information about the FreeBSD license: "This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and another clause removed. (It is also sometimes called the “2-clause BSD license”.)" The license in my package looks more like the FreeBSD than the original, or modified, BSD license. Or is this more suited to -legal?! Regards, [0] http://jonnylamb.com/uploads/facebook_license.txt [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html -- Jonny Lamb, UK jonnylamb@jonnylamb.com http://jonnylamb.com GPG: 0x2E039402
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part