Agenda for License Review Meeting
|
Kim Weins
GPL “or later” issue
- is there consensus on list around leaving as is in terms of listing “GPL v2 only” separately from “GPL v2 or later” with differentiation showing in header text and then links to all “or later” license texts ?? GPL & LGPL exceptions - seems like there is general agreement that each exception should be listed as a separate license on the list - need help generating a list of the commonly used exceptions and how they are named with some kind of consistency in naming Python licenses - currently we have just the two OSI approved licenses, using the OSI long titles for the licenses – Tom I found some other versions, but the naming is a bit inconsistent (in terms of what they are referred to in the field, Tom’s email included some practical clarification on this in terms of matching the license to the software version) - do we need to add others? If so, which ones and how to name? older license versions that are missing: - we don’t have EUPL v1.0, MPL v1.0, NPL v1.0, other OSL versions, AFL, etc. license-specific issues: - X.Net License à this is really an LGPL notice + special exception - should we have it as a separate license? - Zlib/libpng License à note: this is the zlib license, but OSI calls it the zlib/libpng license. Yet there is a different license for libpng: see http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt <http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/src/libpng-LICENSE.txt> |
|
|