Hi, At Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:11:49 +0300, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was not entirely clear that the license is BSD (it isnot referred in > the text). It appeared to be custom made, which would better have peer > review unless that had already been taken place prior this bug report. > In that case the bug is no issue. >
"Custom made," my arse. You posted a bug report for no valid reason (there is infact no bug), got called on it, and are now trying to use ignorance as an excuse. End of story. Every 3 clause BSD license has the same text (excluding the copyright notice). Every last one. > > Observations: > > #1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > #2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the > # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. > > Text referring "The above copyright notice" is nowhere to be found. > There is no "notice" above. Only line referring to the person holding > the copyright (and range years). > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep Copyright /lib/lsb/init-functions #Copyright (c) 2002-08 Chris Lawrence Seems to be there to me! > > #3. Neither the name of the author nor the names of other contributors > # may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software > # without specific prior written permission. > > Does this extend to "derived" works? In that case, it restricts the > other authors to express another viewpoint to the "promote products", > because of previous requirement "must retain...list of conditions" that > apply to other authors? > > Does the last (3) clause limit the commercial and promotional use? > No. It does not. It means what it says it means, e.g. you cannot use the name "Chris Lawrence" as a selling point for your derivitive. > > According to policy: > > Free Redistribution > The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party > ================ > from selling or giving away the software as a component of an > ======= > aggregate software distribution containing programs from several > different sources. The license may not require a royalty or > other fee for such sale. > > As i understand, selling can include include advertising work, i.e. > mentioning authors that have created derived work. > What is your agenda here? You specifically proposed _GPL_ as a "solution to make lsb-base DFSG-free". You are either ignorant, or you are trying to troll us into shooting ourselves in the foot by GPLing interfaces that proprietary (e.g. not DFSG-free) software may need to use, and can use on other LSB implementations. Go troll in some other distro, we're full up here. William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
