[License-discuss] Open source commons

[Thorsten Glaser]

Lawrence,

please stop promoting your agenda under a (very) thin cover
of discussing licences. You’re annoying, in larger doses.

Sorry, but this had to be said.

>This entirely compatible commons includes software under the MPL,
>Eclipse PL, LGPL, and OSL 3.0 licenses.

Perhaps, but, other than the LGPL, virtually nobody uses them.
I doubt the point that there’s a *lot* of copylefted material
under GPLv2-only or GPLv2+/GPLv3∗ (or even CC-BY-SA…) out there,
and not so much of others (LGPL excepted, but those are compa‐
tible so don’t count).

But this isn’t really the topic here. We’ve got multiple licence
models and multiple licences, and those that adhere to our common
idea are all worth something to their users (and the existence
of multiple choices (no monoculture) is a good thing; the choice
users make might even depend on other circumstances than just
the personal favourite…

</unlurk>,
//mirabilos
-- 
(gnutls can also be used, but if you are compiling lynx for your own use,
there is no reason to consider using that package)
	-- Thomas E. Dickey on the Lynx mailing list, about OpenSSL