On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:32:00PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > If we DO need a license for the distribution, something short and to > the point (do whatever the hell you want with it, but don't sue us) > seems reasonable enough; I like Branden's license for the X packages > personally. Er, this is just the MIT license, with the names changed to protect the guilty. I can't claim credit for it. > === > Copyright 1996-2000 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. [...] > === > > In essence: Don't sue us, don't use SPI's name as an endorsement, but > otherwise go forth and multiply. Unfortunately, I think such a boilerplate on the distribution as a whole might seriously delude people. They might think that those terms apply to the GPL'ed software within. I'd hate for us to contribute to GPL violations by accident. I think the boilerplate aggregate license should the GPL. It will be correct in a large number of cases, and if people abide strictly by its terms, there is only a very small minority of packages whose license they could accidentally violate. But I do think that yes, we SHOULD apply an aggregation copyright and license terms. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If God had intended for man to go about branden@ecn.purdue.edu | naked, we would have been born that way. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp1Xdrm7YHr3.pgp
Description: PGP signature