Switch license.html to BSD, and delete the old "FSF screwed over Mepis" rant (which while still true, is no longer relevant).

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 54 deletions

diff --git a/www/licenserant.html b/www/licenserant.html
deleted file mode 100755
index b6af90f3..00000000
--- a/www/licenserant.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,54 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include file="header.html" -->
-
-<p>The reason for the clarification of section 3 is that
-<a href="http://www.linux.com/articles/55285">what the FSF did to Mepis</a> was inexcusable.  (Further discussed
-in <a href="http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-June/022797.html">this
-thread</a>.)</p>
-
-<p>A small Linux distributor named Mepis (more or less a guy in his garage)
-partnered with a big linux distributor called Ubuntu (multi-million dollar
-company with offices in more than one country).  Mepis put out a press release
-quoting Ubuntu's founder about how cool the partnership was, and then Mepis
-pointed to Ubuntu's source repository for GPL packages it was using unmodified
-Ubuntu versions of.  And the FSF went after them.</p>
-
-<p>As far as we're concerned, Mepis didn't do anything wrong, and the FSF
-was a bully.  The FSF was wrong when it tried to make an example out of a
-company that was acting in good faith.</p>
-
-<p>To make sure the FSF doesn't pick on anyone else against our wishes, we're
-clarifying that if you didn't modify the source code, and the binaries you're
-distributing can be entirely regenerated from a public upstream source,
-pointing to that upstream source in good faith is good enough for us.  As
-long as the upstream source doesn't object to the extra bandwidth,
-and the correct source code stays available at that location you specify
-for the duration of your responsiblity to redistribute source, life is good.</p>
-
-<p>There are a few common sense caveats.  This doesn't mean it's fair for a
-Fortune 500 company to point millions of people at somebody's home DSL line
-(certainly not without asking first).  And if the source that's available there
-is not the complete corresponding source to the binaries you distributed, then
-obviously you haven't fulfilled your obligations by pointing to some _other_
-source.  (If you modified it, we want the patch, and claiming you didn't
-modify it when you actually did would be fraud.)  And if the code stops being
-available at that location, you're not off the hook and have to find a new
-location or put up your own mirror.</p>
-
-<p>So this is not a "get out of jail free" card: It's still your responsibility
-to make the complete corresponding source available.  We're just saying you can
-reasonably delegate to something like Sourceforge or ibilbio, and as long as
-everyone who wants the source can get it, we're happy.  If the site you point
-to objects or goes down, responsibility obviously reverts to you.  But there
-are plenty of high-bandwidth places that mirror open source for free these
-days: sourceforge, OSL, ISC, ibiblio, archive.org, and so on.</p>
-
-<p>Oh, one last note: if people come to you asking "where's the source"
-and your answer doesn't satisfy them, ask yourself "did I identify which
-specific version I used, and if I didn't modify it at all did I explicitly
-tell them this"?  If you don't identify the source you used in enough detail
-for open source developers to reproduce what you did, you haven't complied with
-your license obligations yet.  Identifying the specific source you used
-is a very important part of the "written offer" bit that often gets
-overlooked.</p>
-
-<!--#include file="footer.html" -->