Re: [dev] [GENERAL] License manifest

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

Hi there,

On 12 May 2014 17:44, Dimitris Papastamos <sin_AT_2f30.org> 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. suckless.org 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
suckless.org 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
suckless.org 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,
Anselm
Received on Thu May 22 2014 - 10:33:08 CEST