>>>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, Rich Freeman wrote: > Well, I can see legal problems any time you take a thousand things > that all have a bunch of non-identical, informal licenses and treat > them as the same. However, I don't think it is practical to do > otherwise.
I agree. Creating hundreds of license files because of minor variations in wording isn't useful. > How about having an as-is-free and an as-is-nonfree. The easier > thing on maintainers is to make one of those just "as-is," and if we > want to make sure we check them all the better thing is to not do > that. However, making a new as-is-free and treating anything as-is > as not free is probably good enough. I don't think it is wise to do > the reverse, even though that involves the least amount of work. If we really decide to move things to a new license file, then I'd rather avoid the name "as-is" because it is partly the reason for the confusion. We should follow the OSI and SPDX [1] naming, unless there are good reasons against it. Concerning "as-is-nonfree", we already have the slightly more specific "freedist" and "free-noncomm". Ulrich [1] <http://www.spdx.org/licenses/HPND>
