Re: DEP5: License section

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> writes:

> On ti, 2010-12-21 at 00:37 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Draft rev. 135 lists only Expat, but mentions MIT license as being
> > ambiguous. Is the ambifuity solved in newer revisions? Is Expat
> > preserved or replaced by MIT license?
>
> I don't actually see the ambiguity.

As I understand it, the ambiguity is not in the license terms, but in
the name “MIT license”.

MIT have released software under numerous licenses, each different, some
of them non-free; none of them have distinct canonical names AFAIK. So
there's no clear referent of that simple name.

So on that basis, a newer version of the license terms could not solve
the problem.

The license terms for the Expat library are considered functionally
equivalent to the terms people often intend by the name “MIT license”,
so the name “Expat license” is often promoted as more precise when
referring to those terms.

<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#Various_versions>

> Do you have a specific change to suggest? How would you word it?

I would suggest simply using the name “Expat license” (short name
“Expat”) in all cases to refer to those license terms, and a
cross-reference to help those seeking “MIT”.

-- 
 \           “If [a technology company] has confidence in their future |
  `\      ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting |
_o__)     their past innovations really should decline.” —Gary Barnett |
Ben Finney