For Approval: Allegro giftware license

[John Cowan]

Elias Pschernig scripsit:

> I'd like to use the MIT license now instead of approving the current
> one.. but after proposing the license change a user of the library
> raised a problem: The MIT license says that you must retain the license
> notice in re-distributions and even substantial portions of the code.
> This isn't required by our current license - we don't care if someone
> releases all of it under a new name and makes that GPL for example.

All that that means is that the *text* of the license must be included.
It does *not* mean that the text is the current effective license of
the revised work; it's commonplace to include MIT-licensed works in
larger works licensed under other licenses.

In any case, the AFL gives the recipient a few more protections, and
helps to protect you against patent lawsuits.

> Would MIT allow that? The above user suggested to change the license to
> "public domain" instead.. but I can't find that in the list of OSI
> licenses.

It's a matter of dispute whether it's even possible to make something
public domain, at least in the U.S., except by operation of law (that is,
the passage of time).  Actual public-domain code, like that written by
U.S. government employees, actually is Open Source, though.

-- 
You are a child of the universe no less         John Cowan
than the trees and all other acyclic            http://www.reutershealth.com
graphs; you have a right to be here.            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
  --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath                  jcowan at reutershealth.com