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

Re: DEP licenses

Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > consensus that we should do it. However, if no-one objects within a
> > couple of weeks, I'll add a suggestion to use the Expat license in a
> > couple of weeks or so.

I agree that we should suggest the Expat licence.  We're trying to
spread our ideas widely in a crowded market, which is similar to the
commonly-accepted motives to use the LGPL instead of the GPL.

Also, the Creative Commons licences are not all free software licences.

> Please go ahead, just a couple of suggestion:
> - please mention why Expat is being suggested, the scenario of packing
>   DEPs together should be enough to convince the reader IMO

I'd agree that we should mention that Expat is suggested to allow easy
combination of DEPs.  However, "packing DEPs together" does not have
major problems, so isn't a good scenario.

> - please mention the fact that Expat is kinda MIT/X11 with <add the
>   feature I forgot here>, I feel the "Expat" name can sound weird to a
>   lot of non -legal readers

I don't think Expat has any significant additional feature.  Expat is
usually used as the name to avoid the ambiguity caused by referring to
MIT, X11 or BSD (each of which has used several very different
licences over time) and for an explicit inclusion of "associated
documentation files" as "Software".  However, it's not in
common-licenses (yet?).

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: