On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 12:33:26PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Alistair Crooks <agc@pkgsrc.org> writes:
> 
> > Thanks for adding all the licen[cs]e definitions, Martti.
> >
> > One for the licence mavens amongst us: can we make the
> > BSD licences into one of:
> >
> > 	MIT
> 
> MIT has used tons of licenses over the years, so "MIT license" is vague.
> I used "x11" because that's a particular license text.

x11 is fine by me.

> > 	BSD-3clause
> > 	BSD-4clause
> >
> > please? I suspect "modified" means 3 clause here, but if
> > we're going to go to all this trouble, I'd prefer it if we
> > made it obvious what licence is in use.
> 
> Switching to 3clause and 4clause is ok with me.
> 
> > And, secondly, why is it GNU-GPL-v[23], the "GNU-" bit is
> > unnecessary. Or maybe we should call the BSD ones
> >
> > 	Berkeley-BSD-4clause
> 
> It's different.  BSD stands for Berkeley Software Distribution.  GPL
> stands for "General Public License" and the FSF people call it "GNU
> General Public License" when being formal/careful.

The FSF people also say "GNU/Linux" when being formal/careful/all
the time. However, I don't feel strongly enough about this one to
dig my heels in, and I expect everyone's sick of me doing that
already.

And, if it's not obvious yet, I really do appreciate the work
that people are doing in this area.

Thanks,
Al