On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:01:04PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I just started looking at Sphinx, and I'd remembered a bit of discussion > about the license CMU used. I did a mailing list search on "sphinx" just > now back the past 4 quarters of the archive, and the only thing that > turned up was that section 4 of the license passed the Open Source > guidelines but wasn't sure if it passed the Debian guidelines. Anyway, I > was looking over the license and it looks to me that section 5 is a ringer > for the BSD "advertising" clause. > > Do section 4 or 5 place Sphinx into non-free? I'm pretty sure 5 does but > I'd like it confirmed. >
The name change requirement (4) and acknowledgement requirement (5) are both OK as far as the DFSG are concerned. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
