[License-discuss] BSD, MIT [was Re: Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review.]
perrin at apotheon.com
Thu Apr 5 18:41:06 UTC 2012
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 07:30:57AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> 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 (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 moving BSD and MIT to the redundant or superseded lists.
Before pushing such a change, perhaps we should consider the meaning of
Apache 2.0 License section 4, subsections 2 and 4. There's more to
"permissive" than "isn't copyleft", and Apache is a somewhat less
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
More information about the License-discuss