On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 16:21 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:54:05AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > > > Is that the only license for Lesstif? > > > > Strictly speaking, this isn't a license. This is copyright assignment > > with no restrictions. > > Could you explain a bit more? Is there a practical difference compared > with a license like BSD/MIT? > > > I haven't added it to the table yet, because so far, nothing has been > > wholly under this "license". It's not worth listing until we hit a case > > where this is the only "license" for a package. > > In any case I think it would be good to add to the good license page, > such that people don't think this is bad -- even without short name. Its a step more simplistic than BSD and MIT, in that those licenses clearly define and grant specific permissions. This license is vague, and grants "all" permissions. It says, do whatever you want, as long as you keep my copyright intact. The short name for this case would be "Copyright only". You don't have to list this if you don't want to. You can if you feel motivated. The only way we'd fail to comply with this license is if we took out the copyright statement, which we can't legally do anyways. (This is subtly different from Public Domain, which has the same blanket "grant all", but has no copyright assignment.) ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
