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

Re: [DEP-5] [patch] License table: more links and licenses.

* Charles Plessy [2010-08-14 16:58 +0900]:
> After looking at http://spdx.org/licenses/, I realise that the very
> existence of a license list in DEP-5 is in question (not in this thread).
> However, since I had a version of the DEP with a more comprehensive use
> of web links for licenses, I propose the attached patch anyway.
> ...

I already mentioned this points in an old mail or in a wiki:

Once upon a time the following dialog happend:

    <me>            ... great, we need a licence.  What do you think
                    about the expat license?
    <well_known_dd> What?  Which license?
    <me>            MIT
    <well_known_dd> Why don't you call it MIT then?  Anyway, I'm fine
                    with that.

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the licenses description that the expat
license sometimes wrongly is referred to as MIT license?

Since Berkley removed the advertising clause from their published code
(but obviously could do this not for code they do not own the copyright)
referring to the original BSD license just as "BSD" seems to be
imprecise, I would prefer BSD-4.  Especially the explanation should
mention that BSD is the original 4-clause variant.  On Debian
/usr/share/common-licenses/BSD even is a 3-clause BSD license.

Counting from one to four is more easy than remembering which licenses
FreeBSD and TNF use nowadays, we should at least consider adding these
numbers to the licenses description and maybe also make BSD-2
respectively BSD-3 aliases for FreeBSD and NetBSD.


Reply to: