> Indeed it looks very close to my usual license. > Any known drawback with this license ?
Not that I know of, nor that I can see. It seems very close to the MIT license, except that the MIT license does not provide for the clear distinction of modifications from the original work -- which, in my opinion, is also the main point of your license. Here's a discussion I found on the license when the author was submitting it for approval by the Open Source Initiative: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg07630.html A quick Google search appears to show that the license is popular. And as far as I know, it is very common in academic research institutions. I also found version 2.0 of the license, which is based on the Apache license (again, adding the provision for distinction of derivative works). Its basically the same thing but with more legal-speak. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot tell whether any of that verbiage is actually necessary, but it seems to be in many software licenses nowadays, and perhaps that was the intention. However, it seems to mostly protect against patent lawsuits, which I understand would be an issue to a research institution. "Educational Community License, Version 2.0" http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ecl2.php -dZ. -- To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be
