Re: [dev] [GENERAL] License manifest

From: Anselm R Garbe <>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:33:08 +0200

Hi there,

On 12 May 2014 17:44, Dimitris Papastamos <> wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:20:26AM -0300, Amadeus Folego wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> I just noticed most of suckless projects use the MIT License, and I just
>> wondered if there was any place on the suckless wiki that stated why
>> this was preferred, but found none.
>> So I thought that maybe this was something largely discussed already and
>> searched on the mailing list archives but found nothing as well.
>> So, given this context, is there any manifesto about this particular License
>> choice? E.G is there a reason to avoid GPL?
>> And if there is any consensus on this, can we display it somewhere
>> visible on the wiki?
>> Kind regards, Amadeus.
> It is simple to understand. MIT/X does not require a Ph.D in Law.

Exactly. uses MIT/X for most projects just because it is
the simplest wide-spread FLOSS license everybody can understand.

Arguing that US military could use MIT/X licensed software, but can't
use GPL'ed or Peace licensed software is quite dumb and naive.

Personally I don't want to harm or injure people with the software publishes, but nobody would be able to totally exclude
such a possibility due to some stupid license phrases.

Having said this, there is no reason to change the licenses for projects. MIT/X will remain the license of choice.

And we had similar discussions several years ago. If someone is
interested, grep the mail archive.

Best regards,
Received on Thu May 22 2014 - 10:33:08 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu May 22 2014 - 10:36:11 CEST