On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:35 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > Luis Villa scripsit: > >> 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. > > All true, and I greatly favor Apache. But BSD/MIT are well-understood > and still extremely pervasive.
It's surely possible to be well-understood and extremely pervasive, and still be a bad idea to recommend to anyone? (Or as in the current page, imply that there is a good reason other than "historical momentum" for its usage.) Obviously, there is and always will be a large category of licenses that boil down to "if you run across this in the wild, it is Open Source," and BSD and MIT will always be a part of that. But I think they should no longer be part of the category of licenses labeled "if you were to start a new project from scratch, you should probably use one of these" - which I think is what Karl is aiming at here, and what our current page may well be read to imply even if not changed. Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
