[License-discuss] BSD, MIT [was Re: Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review.]

Luis Villa luis at tieguy.org
Thu Apr 5 14:30:57 UTC 2012

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Christopher Allan Webber
<cwebber at dustycloud.org> wrote:
> I also agree that Apache License 2.0 should go before BSD and MIT... I
> feel like we learned that lesson over CC0 discussions.

Without getting into other issues, I'd hope we can agree that BSD/MIT
do not belong in a first-class list here in 2012. Apache fills the
same purpose[1] (permissive license) while being better drafted and
properly handling patents.

Even if the rest of Karl's proposal does not go through, and nothing
else changes with the license list pages, I'd be perfectly happy
moving BSD and MIT to the redundant or superseded lists.


[1] The very short version of my objection to removal of MPL is that
it addresses a clear need (predictable, compatible copyleft) that is
not otherwise addressed. Apache, BSD, and MIT address the same need
(permissive license). The only possible justification for BSD/MIT is
GPL v2 compatibility, but if that's why we're leaving them in the
list, then that should be called out as the only justification for
using them.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list