On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 06:14:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2004, at 17:24, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > >The next question is, which DFSG-free license would you recommend > >for (mostly-)non-program files? > > Depending on what they want, either the 2-clause BSD/MIT X11 (nearly > the same) or the GPL. > > [ The 2-clause BSD is the one without the advertising clause ] I think we need to start saying just "MIT" or "MIT/old X11"; we can't really say "MIT/X11" any more. Much like you can't say "BSD license" any more. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature