NASM Licence

[David Johnson]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Zak Greant wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> It does seem odd.  AFAIK open source programs usually have the same 
> license, regardless of distribution method/platform/etc...  Also, if the 
> product is supposed to be distributed under the GPL, then why the 
> supplementary add-on licensing information?

That "supplementary add-on licensing" IS the license for NASM.

I'm guessing that Debian interpreted clause X as meaning that NASM could be
distributed under the GPL. This is currently under debate in several
quarters. The clause *is* problematic, and I can see validity on both sides.
Considering that event the authors of NASM can't agree as to the meaning of
clause X, Debian should have kept it under its original license (as demanded
in clause VII).

-- 
David Johnson
_______________________
http://www.usermode.org