"Jeremy C. Reed" <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost> writes:
> Adding a license file for every unique license, in my opinion, is too
> much work. (In my license audit research, I have found over 150
> different BSD-style licenses.)
>
> We need to clearly document what the LICENSE attempt to do and that it
> doesn't identify all. Some packages may contain many licenses.
>
> Many Xorg software have near the same license and it is common, but not
> the same as the "mit". I don't know what to name it as though, but
> something generic so it can be reused.
I agree. People who care about nuances of MIT-style licenses need to
hire their own lawyers :-)
I'd say that if the license is close enough that it's reasonably obvious no one
would find one ok and another not then we can call it LICENSE=x11
('mit' is not a good word for licenses; they have used many)
Attachment:
pgp3Ua2ZJPFqa.pgp
Description: PGP signature