On ke, 2010-12-22 at 02:23 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 04:54:56PM +0000, Lars Wirzenius a écrit : > > On ti, 2010-12-21 at 14:04 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > I don't have an opinion on whether MIT license is ambiguous or not, but > > > notice that it is still (in Bazaar repo as of today) not listed in the > > > "Short name" section, but _is_ listed in the "Problematic Licenses" > > > section. > > > > > > So your proposal to "add link to DEP5" is, I believe, tied to removing > > > it from "Problematic Licenses", and this we should discuss. > > > > No, I don't suggest that at all. I suggest keeping it where it is and > > adding a link to it. I don't care what happens to it, so nothing else > > will happen unless and until someone proposes concrete changes. > > I suggest to remove the whole section about problematic licenses: > > - If we indicate a reference form for the MIT license, then it has its place > in the short name table. > > - Description of the Copyright field already specifies that it is where > public > domain should be mentionned. > > - The part about PHP explains that the reason why it is not in the list of > short names; but I do not thing why we should make a justification for PHP > in particular.
I think I agree with Charles, and we should remove the section. Nobody seems to have objected to it. I agree with Ben that "MIT" is an ambiguous name, and "Expat" is better, when it is the one people mean. I'll add a note about this. -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1293030752.23963.98.ca...@havelock.lan