For Approval: MLL (minimal library license)

[David Woolley]

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> I can't make heads or tails of any of this thread.  The 3-clause BSD
> license doesn't have the advertising clause: the advertising clause was

Which rather makes my point that including text by reference to an 
informal name isn't a good idea.

I basically made the assumption that there was something valid in the 
proposal, and, as the proposer seemed to be assuming that the referenced 
BSD version was GPL incompatible, and the only incompatibility I know of 
between GPL and a BSD variant is the advertising clause, I just assumed 
he was referring to a version with that clause.

> So what is all this about?  The 3-clause BSD is just as GPL-compatible
> as the MIT/X license.

Yes.  It does seem even more useless than it already appeared.  Either 
the proposer incorrectly (or on the basis of some FUD rumour) believes 
that variant is incompatible, or they really meant the older version.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.