Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable > license. > > DFSG <URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract> ยง10: > > 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.
Hm, I could have sworn that the DFSG predated the Constitution and hence predated the existence of the three-clause BSD license. UCB dropped the advertising clause in July of 1999 and the DFSG were adopted in July of 1997 according to Wikipedia. Hence, I assumed the BSD license as referred to in the DFSG must, regardless of what the web site currently links to, actually refer to the 4-clause license since that's the only thing that existed at the time. Am I missing something? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
