BCFG Public License

Stephen Gran <sgrandebian.org> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said:
> > Accepted but unpopular.
> 
> This is untrue..  The DFSG endorses it without
reservation.  It would
> be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in
Debian to follow
> the DFSG.

I am following the DFSG and I feel it is best to point out
when
something is close to the edge, or is something accepted but
many dislike.

> > I agree with questioning needing to agree stuff
about US laws.
> 
> I think this is already adequately explained elsewhere.

Then why continue the discussion of it here?

> > I'm curious what rights are reserved by the US
Government - this
> > licence looks like it's not complete without
knowing that.
> 
> I don't see any rights reserved by the US government
in that license.

Exactly.  They are referenced in section 2, but not
identified.  If
there are no such rights, why are they mentioned?

> I see an explicit grant of rights to the US government
and the standard
> no warranty clause extended to the US government, but
that's it.
> Neither of these are freeness issues.

Section 2 does not say that all rights of the USG are in
this licence.
I don't know whether it's a freeness issue or not, as
it's incomplete.
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.o
rg/~mjr/
Please follow 
http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUESTlists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
Contact listmasterlists.debian.org