Appropriate licenses for web libraries

[Pimm Hogeling]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 02:59, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
> wrote:

> Pimm Hogeling wrote:
> > The community has decided that it wants to relicense the libraries under
> > a license that does not obligate a licensee to accompany binaries by the
> > license, a copyright notice or a disclaimer. Is that possible? Is there
> > a license that does this?
>
> Yes.  The Boost license (http://opensource.org/licenses/bsl1.0.html)
> seems well-suited for this.
>
Thank you for that, Matthew. I was looking for that. The term
"machine-executable" that was used in the license might not work for us, but
the overall idea behind the license matches the idea of the library writers.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 02:59, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
> wrote:

> I have to agree with David, though, that there is probably a standard
> way to embed copyright metadata (in addition to obvious routes, like
> HTML and JS comments and a right-click About option).
>
You guys are both correct. The downsides are, we would have to document how
one can comply with the license for any target. Plus, anyone who uses the
language, independent of how big or small the project is, would have to jump
through a hoop. A hoop that has a different shape for each target.

Thanks for the input!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20100311/eae5fe5d/attachment.html>