On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Roger Leigh wrote: > It appears to be a BSD-style licence, with all UCB references > removed,
Yeah, that's pretty much what it is. > but I'd just like to check with you that it is DFSG-free since it is > a different licence, and IANAL. In particular, the "no advertising > without prior written permission" clause looks restrictive, but > appears similar to clause 4 of the BSD licence (could this be seen > to conflict with DFSG clauses 5 and/or 6, since it restricts > advertisers/advertising?). This clause is fine because it's restricting something that already is generally restricted by law anyway. [Eg. claiming that someone endorses a particular product without their expressed approval.] So long as the no advertising clause isn't written in such a way that it precludes us from including the copyright clause or inhibits functional uses of the code, it's generally ok. Don Armstrong -- Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
