Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is this
> > in non-free?
> This does look like a mistaken categorization to me; to my eye, the
> license looks just like the 4-clause BSD.
The problem with mocka is that the source is not exactly the preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it, so we can't really
consider that it "includes" source code.
Google for "debian mocka license" and you will find an old discussion