Adding MIT License to Common Licenses

Steve Langasek steve.langasek at
Fri Aug 1 18:58:57 BST 2008

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 10:41:15AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.

> I would like to add it, and could just do so, but thought it deserved some 
> discussion first.  The text I would add can be found at [3]

> 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.

Is this a point on which it's useful to diverge from Debian?  I know that
Lamont tries to maintain one postfix package for Ubuntu and Debian rather
than two, so if Debian doesn't pick up the MIT license in their base-files
package, we wind up with a delta between the two for just the license text
(or for your scripts, if this becomes a reason not to include them in the

Debian has already considered whether the MIT license should be added to

Wouldn't it be better to carry the license in the postfix copyright file,
than to have to add this as a delta between Debian and Ubuntu in both the
base-file and postfix packages?

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                          
slangasek at                                     vorlon at

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list