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

Re: DEP5: License section

On ke, 2010-12-22 at 02:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 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.

I think I agree with Charles, and we should remove the section. Nobody
seems to have objected to it. I agree with Ben that "MIT" is an
ambiguous name, and "Expat" is better, when it is the one people mean.
I'll add a note about this.

Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):

Reply to: