On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Christopher Allan Webber <[email protected]> wrote: > I also agree that Apache License 2.0 should go before BSD and MIT... I > feel like we learned that lesson over CC0 discussions.
Without getting into other issues, I'd hope we can agree that BSD/MIT do not belong in a first-class list here in 2012. Apache fills the same purpose[1] (permissive license) while being better drafted and properly handling patents. Even if the rest of Karl's proposal does not go through, and nothing else changes with the license list pages, I'd be perfectly happy moving BSD and MIT to the redundant or superseded lists. Luis [1] The very short version of my objection to removal of MPL is that it addresses a clear need (predictable, compatible copyleft) that is not otherwise addressed. Apache, BSD, and MIT address the same need (permissive license). The only possible justification for BSD/MIT is GPL v2 compatibility, but if that's why we're leaving them in the list, then that should be called out as the only justification for using them. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
