-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tacvek wrote:
> the problem: The OSF was unable to decide if the BSDPL is OSD > complient. It looks like they may have concluded it was not. See > the thread at > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg04670.html > Reading that thread a while ago I intended they decided it was a "strange" license (trying to be a BSD that avoids the "GPL taint" it got "tainted" in pretty much the same way, under some points of view, but the author in that thread states that smoe sentences are to be interpreted differently, but that's not clear at all), but it seems to me that they mainly were arguing its validity as a license tout-court (given those not-so-clear statements). Of course here the problem is not if the BSDPL is more or less "open", if the clause says "complies with the Open Source definition" maybe the problem is real... ??????? IANAL, I leave all those thinking to someone who is more lawyer than me (and it's damn easy ;-)) - -- L a p o L u c h i n i l a p o @ l a p o . i t w w w . l a p o . i t / -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkKIWwEACgkQaJiCLMjyUvtbNACfVM4Ez00pYw5LH6YFBMsbHuy6 PfcAn2CppqLJoQuI/PEloLYgRHy1wwnY =f6hx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
