Three new proposed OSD terms
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Fri Mar 4 04:19:18 UTC 2005
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> Perens recommends GPL, LGPL, BSD-new, MPL, and the MIT licenses,
> and he recommends MIT over BSD-new (due to simplicity arguments).
> That's still not a bad list: GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD-new, MPL (or
> some variant).
Why both MIT and BSD-new (aka 3-clause BSD)?
> If you must, add the Artistic license.
I wouldn't ever *recommend* the ArtL. It's a horrible mess.
> So how do you pick the recommended list? I think the short answer
> is, use popularity as your guide, both in lines of code and # of projects.
I can't agree. Other virtues of licenses include well-draftedness,
clarity, templateability, and the presence of post-1995 concerns.
Licenses may be popular simply because they've been around a long time.
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
More information about the License-discuss