Adding MIT License to Common Licenses

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday 01 August 2008 13:12, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Scott Kitterman
>
> | The current [1]'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 [2] 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.

Scott K