licencing (was Re: alpine (was Re: UTF-8?))

Jeremy C. Reed dixit:

>Hopefully not too late now, but why the Apache Software License Version 
>2.0 instead of the simpler and more popular BSD- and MIT-style Apache 
>Software License Version 1.1?

There's a lot more BSD-style licences waiting for your attention:

* The original UCB licence (2, 3 and 4 clauses)
* The MIT licence
* The X11 licence (without or with (XFree86 1.1) advertising clause)
* The ISC licence (preferred by OpenBSD)
* The MirOS Licence (designed to be simple text and EU-law safe too)
* The Apache(TM) licence 1.1
* The "historic permission clause"
* The X.net licence
* The zlib licence
* The PHP licence (which has problems regarding derivates, don't use)
* The Sleepycat licence
* ...

Taken from: http://ifross.de/ifross_html/lizenzcenter.html

Of course I'm biased if I recommend the MirOS licence ;-) but if
you're going to chose that, MIT, UCB or maybe ISC (which has problems,
because of some unclear wording), chances are Alpine makes it into
the base system of a certain BSD operating system I develop on, espe-
cially since all of our developers quite like Pine a lot.

bye,
//mirabile
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt
_______________________________________________
Pine-info mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/pine-info