| 1 |
Yes, Vim license was the base of it, as I noticed, at least by now, that it |
| 2 |
meets the requirements I thought necessary. About that mistake, thanks for |
| 3 |
noticing it. It will be corrected. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
As I said earlier, I am interested in getting different people feedback |
| 6 |
about each item of the license, and if anyone consider something could be |
| 7 |
added and/or modified in any way, I would be glad to hear about it. |
| 8 |
Thanks again! |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
2014-11-03 16:00 GMT-03:00 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Matthias Maier wrote: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > You have chosen to relicense your fork of the codebase under a custom |
| 15 |
> > license that you labeled "SCIM license". |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > A quick peek at the license [2] reveals quite a cumbersome number of |
| 18 |
> > issues (forced contact, contact possibility, redistribution in form of |
| 19 |
> > tarballs and patches). Such a license usually prevents any meaningful |
| 20 |
> > number of external contributions and packaging. Not to mention that |
| 21 |
> > layman's licenses are almost always fundamentally flawed. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> AFAICS, this is identical to the vim license, but with clause |
| 24 |
> II) 2) e) removed. (Which makes the sentence "must be distributed in |
| 25 |
> one of the following five ways" flawed, because now there are only |
| 26 |
> four ways a) to d) left.) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > Why not using an FSF-approved, OSI-approved, and/or DFSG compatible |
| 29 |
> > license instead? I'm sure that there is something available that fits |
| 30 |
> > your taste. (You can e.g. license under "GPL 2 or later" and ask for a |
| 31 |
> > special (non binding) courtesy to inform you of changes/patches.) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> The vim license is approved by the FSF: |
| 34 |
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Vim |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Most likely it will remain a free software license even after removal |
| 37 |
> of above-mentioned clause, but certainly it is no longer GPL |
| 38 |
> compatible. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Otherwise, I agree that using one of the existing free software |
| 41 |
> licenses would be much preferred. License proliferation is a real |
| 42 |
> problem. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Ulrich |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> > [2] https://github.com/andmarti1424/scim/blob/master/LICENSE |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Andrés Martinelli |
Archives