Subject: Re: For Approval: Allegro giftware license
From: Elias Pschernig <elias@users.sf.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:39:04 +0200

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 11:35 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Elias Pschernig (elias@users.sf.net):
> 
> > Anyway, the license is here:
> > 
> > http://alleg.sourceforge.net/license.html
> 
> Elias, speaking for myself, I see nothing within megaparsecs of
> OSD-infringement about this simple permissive licence.
> 
> However (separately from your question), why not a standard permissive
> licence such as the MIT/X one
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)?  I'm sure it'll
> seem a bit colder and less folksy, but among other things you really
> should consider the merits of the MIT licence (and similar ones such as
> revised BSD) protecting you from warranty claims.
> 

I'd like to use the MIT license now instead of approving the current
one.. but after proposing the license change a user of the library
raised a problem: The MIT license says that you must retain the license
notice in re-distributions and even substantial portions of the code.
This isn't required by our current license - we don't care if someone
releases all of it under a new name and makes that GPL for example.

Would MIT allow that? The above user suggested to change the license to
"public domain" instead.. but I can't find that in the list of OSI
licenses.

Any hints?

-- 
Elias Pschernig