Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The problem is, as I said, the terms of the Python license are very > specific to Python. Not in the way that, say, the LPPL is specific to > LaTeX, but that the terms of the license specifically identify the PSF, > and Python. It's like applying a BSD license and leaving "The Regents of > the University of California" in there when you're not the Regents. Or > is that okay? It doesn't seem to me like it should be.
I feel you are missing the difference between licensed under the same terms as Python and licensed under the Python license To me, the former may be acceptable, if we can make a reasonable substitution and deduce which versions of the licence can be used, while the latter is not, because it probably contains lies and irrelevances if applied to other software. The title of http://people.debian.org/~piman/real-license.html describes a problem, but the document then argues against something different. Showing your document to an upstream author at present will probably rightly get "go away, kid" from authors who notice the exaggeration and over-generalisation. I suggest: 1. drop the irrelevant C example; 2. argue against "under the otherthing licence" instead of "under the same terms as otherthing"; 3. comment about possible confusions; 4. suggest non-confusing clarifications; 5. weaken the BSD/ GPL/ MIT/X advocacy - BSD and Artistic aren't "basically the same terms" IMO. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
