Adding MIT License to Common Licenses
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Fri Aug 1 18:48:42 BST 2008
On Friday 01 August 2008 13:12, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Scott Kitterman
> | The current 'permissive' license in common-licenses is BSD. It
> | has some issues and while quite common, is not, I think an ideal
> | permissive license to use when one is looking for a license in that
> | category. The  MIT license is reasonably common and, IMO, a
> | better choice for new projects.
> The sole reason for common-licenses is to save disk space rather than
> repeating fairly large licences such as the GPL. How many packages
> use the MIT licence?
> | I'm specifically doing this now because of some helper scripts I
> | want to get added to the Postfix package that I'd prefer to license
> | MIT and Lamont would prefer something in common-licenses. This
> | seemed like the approach that would be helpful to the most people.
> Adding a licence to base-file because Lamont would prefer a licence
> from common-licenses seems absurd to me, and I see absolutely no point
> in diverging from Debian at this point. Amongst other things, it
> would make people refer to /usr/share/common-licenses/MIT which would
> make those packages unsuitable for Debian.
Right. That was why right now, not why period. I think having a common more
generally useful permissive license than BSD in common-licenses is helpful.
I'm trying to see if I can answer the how many packages question.
More information about the ubuntu-devel