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

Re: DEP5: License section

Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius a écrit :
> On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but 
> > notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the 
> > "Short name" section, but _is_ listed in the "Problematic Licenses" 
> > section.
> > 
> > So your proposal to "add link to DEP5" is, I believe, tied to removing 
> > it from "Problematic Licenses", and this we should discuss.
> No, I don't suggest that at all. I suggest keeping it where it is and
> adding a link to it. I don't care what happens to it, so nothing else
> will happen unless and until someone proposes concrete changes.

I suggest to remove the whole section about problematic licenses:

 - If we indicate a reference form for the MIT license, then it has its place
   in the short name table.

 - Description of the Copyright field already specifies that it is where public
   domain should be mentionned.

 - The part about PHP explains that the reason why it is not in the list of
   short names; but I do not thing why we should make a justification for PHP
   in particular.


Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: