martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.22.1632 +0200]:
> > Please contact the author to change that. DFSG is not a license, but a
> > set of conditions a license should meet so that the program
> > distributed with such license can be part of Debian.
>
> I am the author ;^>
>
> > You can't license code "under the DFSG". You can do it under GPL, BSD,
> > or put the code under into public domain.
>
> So it's not okay?
I don't know, but If I was ftpmaster I would reject it for being incoherent.
> I'll simply GPL it then. But DFSG is more than GPL,
> even though it's not a license, right?
If you mean the GPL license meets DFSG but it's not the only one that
does, yes, of course. Anyway, DFSG says:
10. Example Licenses
The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that
we consider "free".
This point was added so that people could easily choose among those
licenses as a "safe bet" to be DFSG-compliant. We prefer that people
do not try to reinvent the wheel as far as licensing is concerned.
