On 27.11.2012 20:16, Thijs Schreijer wrote: > They are both "you can do whatever you want and get away with it licenses", > but MIT is a clear legal statement, "public domain" is not. I think clear is > better. If you don't want to provide "explicit legal clearance" so it can't > be used in proprietary products, use GPL, same effect, but clear. > > I don't favor one license over the other, they all serve their purpose. But > I do prefer clarity.
That's indeed reasonable. It's just sad. I am complaining, because I don't know where else to post this. > PS. and I hate flame wars so let's stop here before we start one. Right. Sorry about my silly mail. The project shouldn't be political, anyway. I'm currently favouring the Openwall license, which is like 2-clause BSD with the clauses removed. Obvious downside is that it's fairly obscure. Ah, screw it. Please note that the MIT license is not as permissive as public domain, in that 1) I remain "owner" of the copyright, 2) The "standard" text of the MIT license explicitely forbids removing the copyright notice. Best, Moritz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep yourself connected to Go Parallel: DESIGN Expert tips on starting your parallel project right. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
