"Dan Harkless" wrote:
>If not the GPL, what other open source license would be most appropriate? X
>License? Apache License? BSD License? Artistic License? Others...?
I think if you look at the BSD License template here
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html>, you'll find
that it's essentially what nmh is already covered by. I'd suggest
just changing the <organization> to "The nmh Developers".
My preference is for BSD licensing, both to keep with Richard's
wishes, and because I think the GPL is too restrictive, for all
the reasons mentioned previously.
I've included Richard's terse message on the subject from the old
archives below (message 1436 for anyone interested).
-Doug
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Apr 6 01:03:48 1999
>Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 01:03:45 -0400
>From: Richard Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Jerry Peek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Passing nmh maintenance to someone else
>
>> Richard, what about the copyright? Do you want to keep it?
>
>I would prefer that it stay under a BSD -style license (as it
>currently is). But I'm not too concerned about the details.
>
>--
>Richard Coleman
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
