Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/mk

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:17:40PM +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> Thomas Klausner <wiz%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
>> 
>> > The following licenses are accepted by default:
>> >         public-domain
>> >         gnu-gpl-v2 gnu-lgpl-v2
>> >         gnu-gpl-v3 gnu-lgpl-v3
>> >         original-bsd modified-bsd
>> >         x11
>> >         apache-2.0
>> >         cddl-1.0
>> >         open-font-license
>> 
>> No MIT license. At least Squeak and SBCL fall under it.
>
> To quote wikipedia:

I do not trust wikipedia, since it contains many factual mistakes in
such established domains as physics and chemistry, it also presents
hardly realistic views on many historical issues. I'm not a lawyer,
but I do realize that given inherent idiocy of Anglo-Saxon law
misrepresenting licence terms may be treated in a way to start legal
actions.

> According to the Free Software Foundation, the MIT License is more
> accurately called the X11 license, since MIT has used many licenses
> for software and the license was first drafted for the X Window
> System.

Any other source except FSF to support this point of view?
What do people from MIT itself say? From X11 project?

http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

Minor clarification: I do not urge anyone to start changing anything
right now, but I do admit that "X11 licence" doesn't trigger anything
in my mind, "MIT licence" does. That's how almost everyone refers to it:
OSI (see above), Google (http://code.google.com/p/pforth/),
Sourceforge (http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=188),
Berlios (http://developer.berlios.de/softwaremap/trove_list.php?form_cat=100).

Since most of developers have only vague understanding of legal issues,
the name should leave lest possibilities to reading it ambigously.

> If enough people see value in keeping them separate, or renaming the
> x11 one to mit, we might do that of course...

Another thing I don't understand is distinction between "original-bsd"
and "modified-bsd".

1. How does it affect software installation, if you mean advertising clause?
Do we ship substantially modified software?

2. What is the "original BSD" at all? The one from UCB?
UCB removed third clause and everyone is entitled to remove that part.
Thus "original BSD" was and is modified. How does it differ from
"modified BSD" now?

3. What is "modified BSD"? The one, where licensor isn't UCB?
The one, where you don't have non-endorsment clause?

4. If you don't make any distinction between BSD-like license with and
without non-endorsement clause, why you do so with advertising clause?
Assuming that "original-bsd" and "modified-bsd" differ in advertising
clause here.

5. If you treat differences between BSD-like licences that easy,
is zlib/libpng licence (http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php)
"modified-bsd" by your terms?

I do want BSD part be clear to me, since I maintain mostly BSD licensed 
packages.


-- 
BECHA...
   CKOPO CE3OH...