Hi Charles
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:47:41AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> More recently, I have used a more fancy license to indicate my intention
> to have my work treated as if it were in the public domain:
> http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/
>
> However, I understand that one may prefer a more common license. I just would
> like to point out one inconvenience of the so-called ???BDS license???, which
> is
> that actually each instance usually differs by the list of names that is given
> in the non-endorsment clause. Therefore, when collating copyright notices,
> each
> variant of the BSD license has to be listed, which is annoying when projects
> aggregate larger quantity of contributions.
>
> Here are a non-comprehensive list of ???invariant??? alternatives:
>
> - The Boost Software License (http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt).
> - The ISC license (https://www.isc.org/software/license).
> - The FreeBSD license
> (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html).
> - The Gnu all-permissive license
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GNUAllPermissive),
> that is even simpler but still include a non-warranty disclaimer.
Would you mind to sumarise this in a paragraph of our group policy?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100516205425.gd21...@an3as.eu
