> On May 27, 2024, at 09:17, McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> FWIW, the current PHP license has some (IMHO) minor issues with drafting, and
> is non-reusable, and has an advertising clause (clause 6) which means it is
> generally not particularly useful for many users and is not reusable for
> other pro
On May 18, 2024, at 19:21, Ben Ramsey wrote:
Hi, all!
Over the years, there have been a few discussions on this list
regarding the PHP license. Other parts of the open source community
(e.g., Debian) have had lengthy discussions and disagreements
regarding the license, as well. The TL;DR
Hi, all!
Over the years, there have been a few discussions on this list regarding the
PHP license. Other parts of the open source community (e.g., Debian) have had
lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the license, as well. The TL;DR
sentiment of all these discussions amounts to: chan
Hi, all!
Over the years, there have been a few discussions on this list regarding the
PHP license. Other parts of the open source community (e.g., Debian) have had
lengthy discussions and disagreements regarding the license, as well. The TL;DR
sentiment of all these discussions amounts to: chan
> On Aug 20, 2020, at 18:53, Atwood, Mark via License-discuss
> wrote:
>
> Amazon’s preferred permissive license is Apache 2.0. In part because it
> doesn’t have this “dozens and dozens of pointless minor variants” problem.
Except in the case of MIT-0, right? ;-)
https://github.com/aws/mit-
