Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost> writes: > Don't know if it's approved by the OSI or FSF. I considered it > different enough from everything else there (although it seems to drag > in elements of other licenses) to make it separate. But it does seem Given that we have joyent people working on pkgsrc, perhaps one of them could explain if they think this is an existing license or not. If it's an intentional choice not to be an existing license, then... > to be <airquotes>free</airquotes>, and obviously Joyent consider their I wonder if it's really free, even though I agree it seem freeish > license different enough, so it should probably be added to the It's not clear they consider it different, just that they weren't clear about it. > pkg_install stuff, once its freedom is verified. But for just one > package? pkgsrc has tried (or rather I wrote text that said this) to avoid being an arbiter of arbitrarily Free. Currently we have the OSI/FSF test, with the exception from board%netbsd.org@localhost that AGPL is not in default-acceptable (even though it lacks a -license suffix). While this one seems ok, it's both a slippery slope and overly accomdating to license proliferation. Joyent (and everyone else) should either use an existing license or publish a clear statement why no existing license was ok and why the special terms are important are in their new boutique license. I'll have a moment with wdiff...
Attachment:
pgptag96qwvyv.pgp
Description: PGP signature