Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?
On Dec 30, 2007 4:59 PM, Francesco Poli <email@example.com> 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:
A = Allows short statement of application
B = Preserves copyright statements and notices
C = Allows distribution without full license text
D = License is or may be fixed to exclude later versions
| A | B | C | D |
Apache License 2.0 | N | Y | N | Y |
Modified BSD | Y | N | N | Y |
GNU GPL 2 | ? | ? | N | Y |
GNU LGPL 2.1 | ? | ? | N | N |
MIT | Y | N | N | Y |
Mozilla Public License 1.1 | N | Y | N | N |
CDDL 1.0 | Y | Y | N | Y |
Common Public License 1.0 | Y | Y | N | N |
(This table may not be accurate. This is not legal advice.)
The only two problems with the CDDL from my perspective are that a) it
requires users to include a copy of it in all redistributions, and b)
though I wrote gave it a Y in the D column, it's actually not clear
how to make it only refer to a single version of the CDDL. I suspect
that the following might be okay:
* * *
Copyright 2007, Sean B. Palmer, inamidst.com
Released to the public under the CDDL, v1.0 only.
* * *
But that column C failure is a shame. Note that though every single
common license failed column C, some licenses such as the AFL 3.0 do
pass that column.
What I mean to show you with this table is that my requirements aren't
outlandish. It isn't that nobody has thought of them before, or that
nobody considers them important. It's that they're not covered all
together by any single license, as far as I can tell.
> Is that a recommendation or a Python syntax rule?
It's a recommendation that I always follow. If I didn't care about
code being lean and compact and pretty, then columns A and C wouldn't
be requirements for me! :-)
> 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.
I will endeavour to strip personal email address from the recipients
whenever I send messages to debian-legal in future. Please forgive my
ignorance of this point of conduct, and any future instances where I
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/