Re: [Jeff Squyres <email@example.com>] New LAM/MPI license
On 20-Feb-01, 08:24 (CST), Sam TH <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The Artistic License is widely considered problematic, on account of
> it's vagueness. The FSF doesn't consider it a free license. I'm not
> sure if Debian has an offical stance on it.
> Almost every piece of software that uses the Artistic License also
> allows the GPL as an alternative license (this is the way Perl
> works). This avoids the problems raised the by the Artistic License.
If they like the general tone of the Artistic license, you might
suggest they look at the "Clarified Artistic License":
This is listed on the FSF page as free and GPL compatible.
Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)