On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 07:30:57AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Christopher Allan Webber > <cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote: > > I also agree that Apache License 2.0 should go before BSD and MIT... I > > feel like we learned that lesson over CC0 discussions. > > Without getting into other issues, I'd hope we can agree that BSD/MIT > do not belong in a first-class list here in 2012. Apache fills the > same purpose[1] (permissive license) while being better drafted and > properly handling patents. > > Even if the rest of Karl's proposal does not go through, and nothing > else changes with the license list pages, I'd be perfectly happy > moving BSD and MIT to the redundant or superseded lists.
Before pushing such a change, perhaps we should consider the meaning of Apache 2.0 License section 4, subsections 2 and 4. There's more to "permissive" than "isn't copyleft", and Apache is a somewhat less permissive license. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss