From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Feb 22 19:33:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2134311140 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:33:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA17976; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:33:35 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd017833; Mon Feb 22 20:33:09 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA15907; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 20:32:57 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199902230332.UAA15907@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: reviewers for a free software license To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 03:32:57 +0000 (GMT) Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990222200825.03ffb500@mail.lariat.org> from "Brett Glass" at Feb 22, 99 08:19:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > If the GPL is shown to be illegal (which I hope it will be), then such > a clause would be invalidated in the new license, too. It would then > revert to being the standard BSD license, which is (I believe) what > would ideally be used in the first place. The standard UCB license does not contain a severability clause, so a failure of one term fails back to "no license to use". GPL does the same thing. Also, neither license specifically acknowledges DFARS. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message