[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: mit license is ambiguous
On Sat, 04 May 2013, rodent%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
They're not ranting. These two licenses show a difference
(entire clause) when compared with wdiff.
Yes, clearly they are two different licences. So I think that
pkgsrc should not use the name "mit" to refer to both of them.
I'd suggest using "mit" to refer to the version
without the advertising clause, as seen in
<http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, and the existing
pkgsrc/licenses/mit. I see no need for pkgsrc to rename the "mit"
licence to "expat", as the FSF seems to have done, and I note
that the OSI still uses the name "MIT License" to refer to this
Then I'd suggest adding "x11" to refer to the MIT/X
Consortium licence (with the advertising clause), as seen at
--apb (Alan Barrett)
Main Index |
Thread Index |