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.
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: