<x-flowed>At 03:00 PM 1/15/01 -0600, David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 15 Jan 2001, at 20:33, Mike Noyes wrote:
>
> > At 01:33 PM 1/15/01 -0600, David Douthitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >What is the best license for a distribution such as a LEAF Project?
> >
> > David,
> > When we applied for the project on SourceForge, we selected
> > the GPL license.
>
>As I remember, LEAF is not a project unto itself (show me the source
>to LEAF!) but could be more properly described as a "Consortium" of
>LRP-derived distributions.
David,
Correct, but we had to specify a license when we applied for the project. I
was just letting you know about it.
>Would this cause complications if other licenses are used?
Like I said, I don't think so as long as they're OSI certified.
> > You may run into a problem with LRP & Linux which are released
> > under the GPL.
>
>I was reading the GPL elsewhere and it sounds as if distributions are
>not encumbered by the GPL and can be licensed with some other license.
You just went beyond my area of competence. Things start getting fuzzy for
me at this point, and I should probably shut up.
>What was the original license of LRP? Presumably, not GNU since
>there is not a commercial distribution (Coyote).... or is it?
David C. released it under the GPL. It is an older version of the GPL than
the current one though.
> > I think as long as the LEAF releases use OSI certified licenses it
> > wont be a problem.
>
>It sounds as if releasing a distribution under a license is less
>meaningful than releasing software under a license.
I would agree.
>It also appears that multiple licenses are possible with a project.
>
>According to GNU, the MIT/X License is "compatible with the GPL."
I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the information.
>Also, is it beneficial to release the documentation under the GNU
>GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License)? I noticed that SourceForge
>didn't have a classification for the GFDL, but then they are about
>software anyways.
>
>I also noticed this breakdown of OSI licenses for SourceForge
>projects:
>
>GPL 6430
>LGPL 866
>BSD 495
>Artistic 302
>MIT/X 115
>Mozilla 148
>...
>
>So the MIT License isn't the most popular, but it has a lot of
>projects using it - including the very popular X11. The thing I like
>about it is that it permits commercial use and so on - it is LESS
>restrictive than the GPL. I've also liked the BSD License; with the
>new modification to the BSD License it apparently has become even
>better (no more advertizing clause). This license, too, has been
>described by FSF as "compatible with the GPL."
>
>Someone somewhere said that the new BSD license is equivalent to the
>MIT/X license.
--
Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
</x-flowed>
