Re: missing license?

["Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost>]

> Common opinion is using "modified-bsd" for all BSD licences where terms
> are equivalent and only copyright holder differs.

It is closer to the MIT license. It specifically says "free of charge" 
and list examples of rights in redistributing and use. It also 
specifically makes it clear for the recipients of the software.

The clauses are basically the same modified-bsd, but the disclaimer has 
many differences Two of the clauses (source and binary redistribution) 
are the same as the 2-clause-bsd (but that is missing third no 
endorsement/promotion clause). The disclaimer has many differences.

The opening paragraph of The University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source 
License and disclaimer are nearly the same as the MIT License. (Minor 
difference is that the MIT license says "deal in the Software" versus 
"deal with the Software" and disclaimer says authors instead of 
contributors.

The UoI-NCSA license conditions specifically list out conditions for the 
source code redistributions, binary form redistributions, and the no 
endorsement/promotion clause.

Since the UoI-NCSA license is a standard license, I'd just add it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
pkgsrc-wip-discuss mailing list
pkgsrc-wip-discuss%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-discuss