On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:22:47PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Here are reasons why I do not think that licenses inspired by the BSD license
> can be efficiently classified by counting the number of clauses.
>
> First, the license of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code
> copyr
Le Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:57:05AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Carsten Hey writes:
>
> > It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD"
> > and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and
> > respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
>
> That'
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:57:05AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Carsten Hey writes:
> > It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD"
> > and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and
> > respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
>
> That's even
Carsten Hey writes:
> It's might not be obvious for all which BSD licenses are meant by "BSD"
> and "FreeBSD", thus I propose appending " (3-clause BSD)" and
> respectively " (2-clause BSD)" to their descriptions.
That's even more ambiguous, though. It doesn't say *which* clauses; any
three-clau
Hi,
a few remarks about DEP #5:
"The Expat License" is rather unknown under this name, thus I propose
adding a comment like this to its description:
Expat The Expat License (often referred as MIT license, see
comment in *Problematic Licenses*)
It's might not be obvious for a
Hi folks,
Per the DEP process described at http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep0/, this is
the (belated) announcement that DEP #5 has been taken for discussion of...
"Machine-readable debian/copyright".
Title: Machine-readable debian/copyright
DEP: 5
State: DRAFT
Date: 2
6 matches
Mail list logo
