On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > subject says it all, is the OpenContent License DFGS-ok?... now that > I think about it, shouldn't that be OCL? The _text_ of the OPL says > "OpenContent License", not "OpenContent Public License". > > If the answer is yes, > > a) can it be added to the DFSG as a DFSG-ok license? How does one > achieve this? (in other words, who shall be bugged?)
The list given in the DFSG is not meant to be comprehensive. We don't have to add every DFSG-compliant license to it. > b) shouldn't it be shipped in /usr/doc/copyright? Same as before. -- "a229ea764512f7048edf12f09fc0a061" (a truly random sig)
