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 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org