Yes, Vim license was the base of it, as I noticed, at least by now, that it meets the requirements I thought necessary. About that mistake, thanks for noticing it. It will be corrected.
As I said earlier, I am interested in getting different people feedback about each item of the license, and if anyone consider something could be added and/or modified in any way, I would be glad to hear about it. Thanks again! 2014-11-03 16:00 GMT-03:00 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org>: > >>>>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014, Matthias Maier wrote: > > > You have chosen to relicense your fork of the codebase under a custom > > license that you labeled "SCIM license". > > > A quick peek at the license [2] reveals quite a cumbersome number of > > issues (forced contact, contact possibility, redistribution in form of > > tarballs and patches). Such a license usually prevents any meaningful > > number of external contributions and packaging. Not to mention that > > layman's licenses are almost always fundamentally flawed. > > AFAICS, this is identical to the vim license, but with clause > II) 2) e) removed. (Which makes the sentence "must be distributed in > one of the following five ways" flawed, because now there are only > four ways a) to d) left.) > > > Why not using an FSF-approved, OSI-approved, and/or DFSG compatible > > license instead? I'm sure that there is something available that fits > > your taste. (You can e.g. license under "GPL 2 or later" and ask for a > > special (non binding) courtesy to inform you of changes/patches.) > > The vim license is approved by the FSF: > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Vim > > Most likely it will remain a free software license even after removal > of above-mentioned clause, but certainly it is no longer GPL > compatible. > > Otherwise, I agree that using one of the existing free software > licenses would be much preferred. License proliferation is a real > problem. > > Ulrich > > > > [2] https://github.com/andmarti1424/scim/blob/master/LICENSE > -- Andrés Martinelli
