On Dec 31, 2007 11:36 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: > > C = Allows distribution without full license text > > I am not able to see C as a reasonable requirement
Fair enough. I've made a note of that in the following article: http://inamidst.com/stuff/eiffel/ - Why the Eiffel Forum License? Which I've just been writing about why, if you don't bother taking column C into account, the rather obscure but awesome Eiffel Forum License comes out on top. Note that the EFL v.2 is OSI and FSF approved, and GPL compatible. And best of all, for my direct needs, it's DFSG compliant and meets everything apart from column C. Seems like a winner, unless anyone can suggest why not! > Are we sure that B is N for the 3-clause BSD license and for > the Expat/MIT license? Yes, there is no text in those licenses which requires that all copyright notices within the package they apply to are retained and preserved. > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001398.php > http://www.epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html > http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ > http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/google Well at least you're not forced to use Google Mail. Not yet, anyway. (Muahahaha!) -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
