Re: Open Source licensing, Take 2

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 10 2005 - 15:27:36 CDT

>> http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/quickrefchart.xls
>
> Without looking, I know that 45-50 of those are meaningless distractions
> that some company or project pushed for vanity reasons. There are a small
> number of open source licenses that might merit our serious attention.
> Like maybe 4-5, tops.
>
I analyzed this a bit more and have a few more comments (btw, I said 54 but
it's really 52). Going by the columns in the referenced spreadsheet, I
think we want the following to be "Yes.":

COLUMNS = "Yes"
b,c,g,h,i,j

I we agree on those, there are only two like that: Mozilla Public License
1.1 and the Common Public License. However, I think we want k too ("Must
prominently note on the modified version that it has been modified, and note
the date of modification"). This may not be hugely important, but I think
we should have that. No existing license has all that. In addition, I
think we want o="No" (non-viral).

To have all that (and probably more), no existing license works for us.

Alan D.

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT