The publicity clause can be considered as a use restriction, and some people also complained about the choice of venue. Those problems have been raised upstream, but (last time I checked) didn't receive a response.<div> </div><div><a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/07/msg00024.html" target="_blank">http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/07/msg00024.html</a></div> <div> Am Dienstag, 26. Februar 2013 schrieb Colin Watson : <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 03:46:34PM -0600, Ted Gould wrote: > On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 19:13 +0100, Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals > wrote: > > The English Voxforge models are currently packaged in julius-voxforge. > > There I did go with the nightly builds there, since in addition to the > > time and disk size (which IMHO is already enough of a reason), it > > needed HTK to build, which is not redistributable. It'd also be > > interested in more opinions though. > > Yes, thanks for doing that! We found it early on and it created some > very good results. But yes, Julius does have redistribution problems. > But the library being 4-clause BSD and the tools. 4-clause BSD (i.e. with the advertising clause) isn't a distribution problem in itself; from a brief glance at the copyright file I couldn't work out why it was in multiverse. Does anyone have background on that? However, 4-clause BSD is incompatible with the GPL. We could grant an exception for Canonical-owned code, but we'd then have to make sure we never used any external GPL code. It probably wouldn't be worth the hassle. -- Colin Watson [<a>cjwatson@ubuntu.com</a>] -- ubuntu-devel mailing list <a>ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel</a> </blockquote></div> -- Siegfried