On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 02:19:57AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > This would be a good solution. What about the later Apple licence ?
> > >
> > > If we can get it under the MIT/X11 license it doesn't matter what other
> > > licenses it's under. The MIT/X11 license is non-exclusive.
> >
> > Well, i ask, because apple may be more inclined to use a licence they
> > have experience with.
>
> 2-clause BSD, as used by the NetBSD Foundation, would be good, too.
Er. Be careful with this statement. The Foundation's policy has varied
between at least (that I *know* of) 2 and 4 clause licenses. Their
widespread use of the 4-clause for a time is part of the conversations with
them about the kernel source, among other things.
Not that 2-clause isn't good; more that folks shouldn't assume that just
any random thing with the NetBSD copyright on it is 2-clause, unless
it does in fact appear to be a 2-clause license. Yes, this *should* be
obvious, but I've run into folks who seem to forget this detail... (ah,
the joys of trying to hunt down upstreams who haven't been seen in over a
decade, some of whom now are now CTOs with battalions of secretaries to
keep them from being bothered...)
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpOUk7WaoPSW.pgp
Description: PGP signature