On May 16 10:34, Lapo Luchini wrote: > -----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
If in doubt, don't put it into the distro. There is doubt, apparently. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
