* Nicholas D. Steeves: > Hi, > > Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> writes: > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> >>> it would still not be DFSG-free, because it >>> fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer >>> Consulting would accept email, it would also fail the "dissident test". >> >> This is the first time I see someone claiming BSD-4-clause would not >> be distributable. >> > > Well, BSD-4-clause isn't on the list of DFSG-approved licenses... > > https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
The DFSG announcement in <https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1997/msg00017.html> predates the removal of the advertising clause by almost two years. As a result, there isn't any ambiguity at all whether the original 4-clause BSD license is DFSG-compliant or not: At the time, the BSD license still had the advertising clause, and yet it is explicitly considered as free. And the Internet Archive agrees: <https://web.archive.org/web/19990417142705/http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license> (The webwml history does not contain this version of the file, probably because it wasn't in CVS at first.)
