On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:51:04AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause, > > which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern --- > > to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other > > software, for example.] > > It does seem beyond basic copyright, and in EULA/contract territory.
I agree, which is why I think we need to rid Debian main of all occurences of the 4-clause BSD license. I filed many bugs about this years ago, so that the impact of passing a change to the DFSG that would unambiguously regard the forced-advertising clause of the old BSD license as non-free. Some of the bugs still open on this subject are: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123813 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123815 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123823 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=123827 -- G. Branden Robinson | Reality is what refuses to go away Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Philip K. Dick http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
