> Are y'all suggesting yet another category, "deprecated"? And how does > that differ from some other categories, "non-reusable" in particular? > Why can't problematic licenses just be reclassified as "non-reusable"?
I would argue that, rather, redundant, superceded, and voluntarily retired licenses are all subcategories of deprecated. However, none of those words carry the implication for developers and companies that "deprecated" does; that simple word conveys the idea that the license exists but should not be used. None of the other catergory words we've chosen work in that fasion. -- Josh Berkus _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
