Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Francesco Poli <email@example.com> writes:
>> > These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing:
>> > | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the
>> > | following ones are also fine:
>> > | * the 3-clause BSD license
>> > | http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html
>> > | * the GNU GPL version 2
>> > | http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt
>> > | * the Expat/MIT license
>> > | http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
>> I agree, and please update the wiki page with this. (I can do it on
>> Monday otherwise, when I also intend to file the bug reports.)
> I don't know whether I'll have enough time to do it personally.
> Let's do as follows: I see if I can modify the wiki page on Sunday; you
> look at the wiki page on Monday and, if it's not already updated, you do
> the changes.
I've updated it, thanks!
>> Btw, one variant of the "MIT License" is described at:
> That is the Expat license, word for word identical.
I used that link instead of the one above, this one seems more
>> As far as I'm aware, there is no canonical organization or similar
>> behind the MIT license, so it is difficult to find out whether we are
>> using the correct term for the correct license.
> The fact is that it's *one* of the licenses historically used by MIT.
> But MIT used many other licenses as well, so referring to it as the "MIT
> license" is a bit vague. Moreover the X11 license is also known as the
> "MIT license" as well; hence the name "MIT license" is an ambiguous
> As already explained, "X11 license" is also vague...
It's a mess, agreed. I can't think of a better name than "Expat/MIT"
though, and since the URL is present, the risk of confusion seems
> P.S.: Please do not Cc: my personal address when replying to the list,
> as I didn't ask to be copied. Thanks.
Sorry, I'm reading this list through gmane.org and pressed 'F' in
Gnus, which apparently ended up being the wrong thing. I changed the
headers manually this time.