On 03/12/2013 03:24 PM, Hans Spath wrote:
Hello,
according to https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/archiso/ archiso is licensed under "GPL".
Is that correct? What version? v1? v2? v2 or any later? v3?
Regards, Hans Spath
Hi I guess is GPL2. @Arch-Releng: right? -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi \cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1
Am 13.03.2013 00:32, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
On 03/12/2013 03:24 PM, Hans Spath wrote:
Hello,
according to https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/archiso/ archiso is licensed under "GPL".
Is that correct? What version? v1? v2? v2 or any later? v3?
Regards, Hans Spath
Hi
I guess is GPL2.
@Arch-Releng: right?
I think nobody ever cared about licensing. As it is, the archiso tree contains no license statement. I'd just use "GPL2 or later", but I don't know what the implications are. Or, as the number of authors is small, just ask everyone to relicense as WTFPL?
WTFPL??? Why not DBAD https://github.com/philsturgeon/dbad
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Thomas Bächler
Am 13.03.2013 00:32, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
On 03/12/2013 03:24 PM, Hans Spath wrote:
Hello,
according to https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/archiso/ archiso is licensed under "GPL".
Is that correct? What version? v1? v2? v2 or any later? v3?
Regards, Hans Spath
Hi
I guess is GPL2.
@Arch-Releng: right?
I think nobody ever cared about licensing. As it is, the archiso tree contains no license statement. I'd just use "GPL2 or later", but I don't know what the implications are. Or, as the number of authors is small, just ask everyone to relicense as WTFPL?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:33:20AM +0100, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 13.03.2013 00:32, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
On 03/12/2013 03:24 PM, Hans Spath wrote:
Hello,
according to https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/archiso/ archiso is licensed under "GPL".
Is that correct? What version? v1? v2? v2 or any later? v3?
Regards, Hans Spath
Hi
I guess is GPL2.
@Arch-Releng: right?
I think nobody ever cared about licensing. As it is, the archiso tree contains no license statement. I'd just use "GPL2 or later", but I don't know what the implications are. Or, as the number of authors is small, just ask everyone to relicense as WTFPL?
I would suggest using a license which has a legal history, instead of one of a one-off written by someone who likely isn't a lawyer, and whose license hasn't been vetted by one.
If we want the license to be a) as permissive as possible and b) legally watertight, there a basically three licenses to choose from (dismissing for now many, many lesser known): 1. The ISC License 2. The BSD License (3- or 2-clause) 3. The MIT/Expat/X11 license All three are GPL compatible and OSI, FSF and Copyfree approved and should withstand legal actions. The ISC license is basically a modernized version of the 2-clause BSD license and is the preferred license of the OpenBSD project since 2003.
On 03/13/2013 06:33 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 13.03.2013 00:32, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
On 03/12/2013 03:24 PM, Hans Spath wrote:
Hello,
according to https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/archiso/ archiso is licensed under "GPL".
Is that correct? What version? v1? v2? v2 or any later? v3?
Regards, Hans Spath
Hi
I guess is GPL2.
@Arch-Releng: right?
I think nobody ever cared about licensing. As it is, the archiso tree contains no license statement. I'd just use "GPL2 or later", but I don't know what the implications are. Or, as the number of authors is small, just ask everyone to relicense as WTFPL?
Just a personal preference, because of simplicy, ISC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi \cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1
participants (5)
-
Dave Reisner
-
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
-
RED 404
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Frilling