This licenses should go into MISC-FREE: - JDOM - dom4j - JasPer2.0 - icu - saxpath - FastCGI - jaxen and into FREE-DOCUMENTS: - CCPL-ShareAlike-1.0 Reproducible: Always
Committed now. licenses team: Opinions on breaking up MISC-FREE into a least one separate group for BSD-like licenses? All of the MISC-FREE additions below are very BSD-like, with an added attribution request (not requirement).
(In reply to comment #1) > Opinions on breaking up MISC-FREE into a least one separate group for > BSD-like licenses? All of the MISC-FREE additions below are very BSD-like, > with an added attribution request (not requirement). How many entries of MISC-FREE (besides the ones listed here) could be moved to such a new group? By the way, "JDOM", "jaxen", "saxpath", and "werken.xpath" are very similar to each other, so maybe a common license template could be created? That would also reduce the number of entries in the license_groups file.
(In reply to comment #1) > licenses team: > Opinions on breaking up MISC-FREE into a least one separate group for BSD-like > licenses? All of the MISC-FREE additions below are very BSD-like, with an added > attribution request (not requirement). I think MISC-FREE would be worth branching and that it would make sense even to create new groups that aren't necessarily children or parents of already existing ones. This way we could cater to other needs as well then just follow OSI and FSF specs. On a related note, here's a list of licenses with classification buttons by FSFE's Adriaan de Groot: http://blogs.fsfe.org/adridg/?p=542 http://blogs.fsfe.org/adridg/?p=576 http://blogs.fsfe.org/adridg/?p=588 http://blogs.fsfe.org/adridg/?p=618
Of the 57 licenses in MISC-FREE, 24 of them are a variant of one of the BSD licenses. I don't see any other trends in reading the rest of the MISC-FREE licenses. BZIP2: BSD-4 CMake: BSD-3 + non-misrepresented clause dom4j: BSD-4 + attribution request ElementTree: BSD-3 reformatted FastCGI: BSD-2 + free licensing choice on modifications FLEX: BSD-4 reformatted FVWM: BSD-3 reformatted icu: BSD-4 reformatted (might be BSD-3, reformatting is odd) Info-ZIP: BSD-2 + non-misrepresentation clause + trademark rights on original product JamesClark: BSD-3 reformatted JasPer2.0: BSD-3 reformatted jaxen: BSD-2 + non-misrepresentation clause + attribution request JDOM: BSD-2 + non-misrepresentation clause + attribution request JNIC: BSD-3 reformatted MaxMind: BSD-4 reformatted PBZIP2: BSD-3 reformatted + non-misrepresentation clause POSTGRESQL: BSD-2 reformatted, with a different disclaimer Princeton: BSD-3 reformatted + application on modifications pysqlite: BSD-2 reformatted saxpath: BSD-2 + non-misrepresentation clause + attribution request Scintilla: BSD-2 reformatted, with a slightly different disclaimer Subversion: BSD-4 + advertising clause is only on documentation + trademark restrictions w3m: BSD-2 reformatted ZSH: BSD-2 reformatted + different disclaimer other: ANTLR BEER-WARE CC0-1.0-Universal CDDL-Schily CRACKLIB cryptopp eGenixPublic-1.1 Emacs FLTK gnuplot GPL-2-with-exceptions GPL-2-with-linking-exception gsm iASL IDPL imagemagick LLGPL-2.1 LPPL-1.3 LPPL-1.3c lsof No-Problem-Bugroff OpenSoftware otter PDFLite PHP-3 RSA-MD4 RSA-MD5 Sendmail SMAIL tcp_wrappers_license TeX wxWinLL-3 Xdebug
Don't know if I have any voice in this, but I vote for grouping all BSD-ish licenses into a @BSD-ISH (for lack of a better name) group.
@BSDLIKE @BSD-FAMILY? Clearly, a native English speaker is asked for.
How about @MISC-BSD-LIKE?
(In reply to comment #7) > How about @MISC-BSD-LIKE? The problem I have with "BSD-like" is that it seems like it's licenses that are similar to BSD and not that they're licenses that are basically an adapted BSD license. But I'm probably nit-picking now. For coherency's sake, I think either @MISC-BSD-LIKE or @BSD-LIKE are good names for it. About the "MISC-" prefix I think we should decide on the basis how we plan to group other licenses. We could even make other lists like @EUPL-COMPATIBLE, @APACHE-COMPATIBLE or even @PERMISSIVE and @SAVES-MY-ASS-FROM-PATENT-CLAIMS. And to make everything coherent, IMHO it'd be bad to have "MISC-" in front of everything (especially the lasst example).
I vote for "@BSD-LIKE" then. I think that the other grouping possibilities will actually come down to if it's added restrictions or added privileges. @MISC-FREE I want to break down as it's the largest group.
(In reply to comment #9) > I vote for "@BSD-LIKE" then. I think that the other grouping possibilities will > actually come down to if it's added restrictions or added privileges. > > @MISC-FREE I want to break down as it's the largest group. I agree with both.
