This licenses should go into MISC-FREE:
and into FREE-DOCUMENTS:
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:
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.
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
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.