> "BSD is the only true Open Source license." This is an interesting > quote from an idiot. But I would really like to here other opinions on > this.
Other opinions on what? "True Open Source"? Your licence classification scheme below? If you mean "True Open Source", then I think this debate is a bit loaded for me. I'm not much of a One True Way person. I'm still of the "that's nice of them!" camp: "They let me distribute it? That's nice of them, they don't have to do that!" If you want opinions on what licences we like, here's mine: - for example code: as loose as possible, looser than LGPL. If my code aims to give people an idea of how to write a certain kind of code, I don't want them to worry about when something is or isn't a derived work; - for small scripts: BSD or MIT for similar reasons to example code; and - for larger projects: LGPL or GPL, because I tend to be interested in the health of the project more than the ability of people to use the code for whatever purpose they like (distributing the code is healthy for the project, distributing changes is healthy, but "making a closed source fork" isn't because it won't help the project grow). -Mary -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
