"David H. Gutteridge" <david%gutteridge.ca@localhost> 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/license.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.
Description: PGP signature