Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered > by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of > least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable > licenses in the DFSG.
The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable license. DFSG <URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract> §10: 10. Example Licenses The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we consider free. That text isn't specific about *which* "BSD license" is an example of a free license. However, in that text, the term 'BSD' is an anchor to <URL:http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license>, which is a copy of the 3-clause BSD license, without advertising clause. That seems explicit that it's the version given as an example of a free license. It would perhaps be better for the DFSG to disambiguate "BSD license" in the text of the DFSG, but the hyperlink to the 3-clause BSD license without advertising clause serves the purpose in this instance. -- \ “It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in | `\ trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so.” —Artemus | _o__) Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
