[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ask about the license "permissive"

> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 20:50:10 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the
>> > license?
>> It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical
>> Permission Notice and Disclamer’ [0][1].  It is indeed a lax permissive
>> licence, so I see no problem.
> To be clear, there is probably no canonical name for this license. It
> is one of many permissive licenses, rather than being "the Permissive
> License".
> Permissive licenses typically need to be quoted in full in the Debian
> copyright file.

Any licence regardless of its conditions (permissive, copyleft or even nonfree), except the following ones, should be quoted in full, is not it?

,----[ $ ls /usr/share/common-licenses/ ]
| Apache-2.0  BSD   GFDL-1.2  GPL    GPL-2  LGPL    LGPL-2.1
| Artistic    GFDL  GFDL-1.3  GPL-1  GPL-3  LGPL-2  LGPL-3

Reply to: