In general 'permissive' vs. 'non-permissive' applies to the obligation to publish source code, not the obligation(s) to reproduce copyright and license notices. It is generally assumed that nearly all licenses will incur some sort of attribution obligation, including 'permissive' licenses.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Massimo Zaniboni < massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com> wrote: > On 13/01/2017 22:54, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: > > "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for >> any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the >> above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." >> > > ... or more succintly, if we have this license: > > "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for > any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the > above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies, > and that the modified source code is released." > > is this is a viral license, similar to the GPL? For me yes. Every time you > release a derived work, you had to include the copyright, the license and > the source code. > > Then why this form: > > "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for > any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the > above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." > > should be "for sure" a permissive license instead? > > > Regards, > Massimo > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
