On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
> On 16 August 2011 14:33, Torsten Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> frank wrote:
>>> Meaning that anything ripped out of Sophie 1.0 should be (or is, rather)
>>> >covered by an MIT licence, rather than Sophie 2.0's licence. Which is a
>>> good >thing!
>>
>> Sophie 2.0 is ECL: http://www.sophie2.org/users/licensing.html
>> Sophie 1.0 is BSD: http://www.futureofthebook.org/sophie/about/license
>>
>> Where did you read about MIT?`
>
> BSD, MIT. They're pretty much identical. Anyway, I should have said "BSD".
But identical is not the same. As soon as we ad Sophie code, we need to add the
Sophie license
to the license of Pahro.
And than the whole license story gets one notch more complicated again.
Marcus
--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
