tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]


"David H. Gutteridge" <> writes:

> I'd like to clarify the status of Beer-Ware licensing. Right now, a
> file for it exists in /licenses, without the "-license" suffix,
> implying (per what's stated in mk/ it's considered FOSS and
> so should probably be included in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES. I see
> it's considered such by Debian, which is one of the other standards
> referenced. (It's also included in the NetBSD src tree as though it's
> compatible with BSD, e.g., src/lib/libc/hash/hashhl.c.)

If Debian accepts software with this in main, that's evidence that they
judge it to meet DFSG, and as you say that's enough for us.

It's clearly a Free Software license, so I think Debian got it right.

> Perhaps this simply hasn't come up before because there are so few
> packages that use it. (I see the original one that spurred its addition
> later changed to MIT, and there are only two at present with this
> attribution, though there should probably be one more, and there's at
> least one queued in wip.)

I think you are right that this is just so rare.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index