On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 01:54:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:16:16AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > 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. > > Eh? Why can't we? What's the "new" MIT/X11 license? If we keep saying "the MIT/X11 license is okay" then some fuckhead will use the X-Oz license. Same problem that we have with the BSD licenses. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature