On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:51:44 +0000 Sean B. Palmer wrote: > On Dec 30, 2007 4:59 PM, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote: > > > Please don't take offense for this, but I think that your needs are > > not so critical that they cannot be bent a little to be satisfied by > > an existing license. > > Well several licenses have parts of what I need, but there's no > license which has all of what I need. I've found that the CDDL comes > closest on the OSI's "popular licenses" list: The CDDL is a poor license choice: see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00032.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00056.html Remember: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. > > A = Allows short statement of application > B = Preserves copyright statements and notices > C = Allows distribution without full license text I am not able to see C as a reasonable requirement: including the full license text when redistributing is something that should be done anyway as a matter of clarity (so that recipients know their rights, even when they don't have an Internet connection). Hence, mandating it as a condition for the permission to reditribute does not seem to be a bad thing. Please reconsider your requirements: I would recommend you to drop C entirely. > D = License is or may be fixed to exclude later versions D is a very agreeable requirement, from my point of view. I tend to keep an eye on this feature, when I analyze licenses. > > | A | B | C | D | > ---------------------------+---+---+---+---+ [...] > Modified BSD | Y | N | N | Y | [...] > MIT | Y | N | N | Y | Are we sure that B is N for the 3-clause BSD license and for the Expat/MIT license? If I understand requirement B correctly, I would say that B is Y for these two licenses. [...] > But that column C failure is a shame. No, it's a feature, I would say! ;-) [...] > > Please do _not_ reply to my personal e-mail address > > Whoops, sorry. I just hit "Reply to all" in my email client; "Reply" > would have sent it to you personally only. My email client is Google > Mail, so you might want to complain to its maintainer. No, I might want to complain to the users of that privacy bomb: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/google :-( -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpBytrDgo7_Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature