Re: [gNewSense-users] Re: PVF and The BSD License Problem

[Lee McCafferty]

Yes, I was aware of the problem and understood it quite clearly. The s/w
is clearly free software so I'm sure it will stay. It is merely a
question of what s/w we want to include or not. It is there so it will
likely stay put, but do we want to accept new s/w with similar type
licences? These licences can cause compatibility problems, so will we be
in the habit of accepting them in the future? I simply did not want to
make any assumptions so decided to pose the question.
Lee
P.S The above questions are now all rhetorical.

On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 22:44 +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Lee McCafferty wrote:
> > 
> > [...] but contains a version of the "obnoxious BSD advertising
> > clause" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html).  [...] Do we
> > consider this to be a problem or not?
> 
> If you read this article carefully, it talks about a practical problem
> that is particularly inconvenient for distributions.  There is no
> doubt that the Original BSD license is a free software license
> (although not recommended because of this clause which also makes it
> GPL-incompatible).
> 
> If the article is not clear and fails to convey this information,
> please write to <address@hidden>, possibly describing what lead
> to this confusion.
> 
> P.S.  Wishlist: It would be very nice if the "PVF" folks stop sending
> messages in HTML.  It may appear to you that it's fancier and more
> helpful to the readers, but the reality is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gNewSense-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users