Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

Jilayne Lovejoy <Jlovejoy@...>

Instead of all three variations, we could just have the OSI one, which
is basically the zlib license template (no specific copyright) and then
the specific libpng license, since it does have some other text
differences. In which case, we might simply call it the "zlib" license
instead of the OSI's "zlib/libpng" license, which is a bit confusing.


I'd like to get the latest version of the license list uploaded
tomorrow, if possible, pending this issue :)


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Callaway [mailto:tcallawa@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:27 PM
To: Soeren_Rabenstein@...
Cc: Jilayne Lovejoy; spdx@...
Subject: Re: zlib and libpng licenses clarification

On 12/21/2010 09:14 PM, Soeren_Rabenstein@... wrote:
This is related to my question in the last legal team conference call:
How to deal with the billions of 'BSD-style'-licenses, the only
difference of which is the Copyright notice?
The answer was to come up with a license template concept. If I
understand this right, we are going to define the reference license
of those licenses with a variable data field included in the text. Is
this right?
Sure, but in the case of libpng's license, the difference is more
significant than Copyright holder identifiers. It doesn't fundamentally
change the license's meaning, but it is technically different text, even
if templated.


Fedora Project

Join to automatically receive all group messages.