You are welcome.
Yes, according to Fedora Licensing Guidelines [1], you should use the
same short name ‘MIT’ for either Expat license, X11 license, SGI FSL-B
2.0 and several other similar but not identical licenses. (That would
not be true, however, if you wanted to make Debian package, for instance).
[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
On 25/02/15 18:31, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25.2.2015 01:42, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
This is SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 which is described on
GNU.org in a following way [1]:
The SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 is a free software
license. It is essentially identical to the X11 License [2], with
an optional alternative way of providing license notices.
and marked with a green line as compatible with GNU GPL.
Is it ‘just MIT’ or not, depends on what you call ‘just MIT’. There are
at least two popular MIT licenses: Expat [3] and X11 [4]; if both are
‘just MIT’ to you, then SGI FSL-B 2.0 is too. Its last paragraph is a
non-endorsement clause identical to that of the latter one. It’s the
second paragraph that makes SGI FSL-B 2.0 different from either Expat
and X11; to be precise it makes it slightly more permissive, allowing
hyperlinking to license (à la Creative Commons Attribution) instead of
providing its full text. (However, I have no idea, who might take
advantage from this permission – the full legal text is just 25 lines
long.)
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#SGIFreeB
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License
[3]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
[4]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11
Thanks Dmitry,
as "just MIT" I meant if I should use "MIT" in the RPM license tag.
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
