For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[Matthew Flaschen]

David Woolley wrote:
> Zak Greant wrote:
> 
>> Regardless of terminology used, this still doesn't need to be approved
>> or codified, IMHO.
> 
> To achieve its intended effect, it needs to be codified, or given as a
> dual grant of LGPL and 3 term BSD. What it seems to be saying is that
> the code may be used in non-GPL software, but in that case the
> advertising clause is mandatory (which means it will not be used unless
> essential).

No, the 3-term BSD (i.e. http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php)
does not have an advertising clause.  I'm really not sure why anyone
would use this quasi dual-license, and don't see a reason to approve it.

Matt Flaschen