| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Well, I can see legal problems any time you take a thousand things |
| 4 |
> that all have a bunch of non-identical, informal licenses and treat |
| 5 |
> them as the same. However, I don't think it is practical to do |
| 6 |
> otherwise. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I agree. Creating hundreds of license files because of minor |
| 9 |
variations in wording isn't useful. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> How about having an as-is-free and an as-is-nonfree. The easier |
| 12 |
> thing on maintainers is to make one of those just "as-is," and if we |
| 13 |
> want to make sure we check them all the better thing is to not do |
| 14 |
> that. However, making a new as-is-free and treating anything as-is |
| 15 |
> as not free is probably good enough. I don't think it is wise to do |
| 16 |
> the reverse, even though that involves the least amount of work. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd |
| 19 |
rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for the |
| 20 |
confusion. We should follow the OSI and SPDX [1] naming, unless there |
| 21 |
are good reasons against it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Concerning "as-is-nonfree", we already have the slightly more specific |
| 24 |
"freedist" and "free-noncomm". |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Ulrich |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] <http://www.spdx.org/licenses/HPND> |
Archives