On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Luis Villa <l...@tieguy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Engel Nyst <engel.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello license-discuss, >> >> Thank you for the work and patience on this. IMHO the new page looks >> more useful than it used to be. >> >> Cosmetic point: two of the licenses have explicit version, while the >> others don't. Is this intended? > > Somewhat intended: the unversioned licenses have either (1) only one > version in wide use (e.g., CDDL)
To be clear here, I mean CDDL 1.1's "wide use" in comparison to other versions of CDDL. CDDL's popularity (or lack thereof outside of Sun/Oracle-sponsored projects) is obviously problematic for the current categorization system, as I acknowledged in my blog post ( http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/03/a-revised-osi-open-source-licenses-page/ ). Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
