Licenses

[markc]

Looks like the WTF license isn't OSI approved according to this page...

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Would it be reasonable to create a top level file called LICENSES and simply list links to whatever licenses you want using the exact links on the page above?

[mschwartz]

How about we pick one? BSD or MIT or Apache or LGPL. Any preference?

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Mark Constablereply@reply.github.com wrote:

Looks like the WTF license isn't OSI approved according to this page...

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

Would it be reasonable to create a top level file called LICENSES and simply list links to whatever licenses you want using the exact links on the page above?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#14

[markc]

On 30/12/11 00:01, Michael Schwartz wrote:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

How about we pick one? BSD or MIT or Apache or LGPL. Any preference?

I'm a GPL zealot so I'd go for LGPL out of the above.

If you don't care then a short sentence in a LICENSE file simply pointing
to the above site and say "pick whichever one you want as long as it's
OSI approved". The only reason for a license is so that Debian (and others)
will allow it to be redistributed from their main repos. I'm not sure if
"any OSI license" is too vague or not but they do mandate an OSI license
as a minimum so it might work.

[mschwartz]

My concern is to allow people to freely use and even sell the software.

I'll start with the choose one.

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Mark Constable <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

On 30/12/11 00:01, Michael Schwartz wrote:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

How about we pick one? BSD or MIT or Apache or LGPL. Any preference?

I'm a GPL zealot so I'd go for LGPL out of the above.

If you don't care then a short sentence in a LICENSE file simply pointing
to the above site and say "pick whichever one you want as long as it's
OSI approved". The only reason for a license is so that Debian (and others)
will allow it to be redistributed from their main repos. I'm not sure if
"any OSI license" is too vague or not but they do mandate an OSI license
as a minimum so it might work.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#14 (comment)

[mschwartz]

LICENSE file added.

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Mark Constable <
reply@reply.github.com

wrote:

On 30/12/11 00:01, Michael Schwartz wrote:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

How about we pick one? BSD or MIT or Apache or LGPL. Any preference?

I'm a GPL zealot so I'd go for LGPL out of the above.

If you don't care then a short sentence in a LICENSE file simply pointing
to the above site and say "pick whichever one you want as long as it's
OSI approved". The only reason for a license is so that Debian (and others)
will allow it to be redistributed from their main repos. I'm not sure if
"any OSI license" is too vague or not but they do mandate an OSI license
as a minimum so it might work.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#14 (comment)

[markc]

Heh, well done. We'll see if anyone complains about that!