On Oct 26 02:27, Jari Aalto wrote: > 2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina > > On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote: > | > https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git > | > | Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side. > > No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice, considering > the existing licencing policy in Open Source software projects. > > | License in the base-files package contents. > | What would be more appropriate? GPLv3? > > The relevant[1] big ones are GPL, BSD-2-clause, MIT and Apache. Trying to > avoid license fragmentation is always a good move.
Despite all the arguments, here's a question: If PD is such a bad idea, why is Fedora's setup package, which provides much the same service as our base-files package, PD licensed as well? Why on earth should it be required to put really simple startup scripts under more complex than the absolute necessary licenses? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat