On Oct 26 09:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > 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?
Actually, it's kind of a shame that such files have to be put under a license at all. There should be a "too obvious to license" rule. Anyway, if all else fails, I'd prefer a 2-BSD license for these files. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat