| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Good F/OSS license summary |
| Date: | 2008-02-01 19:31:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20080201193146.GD10889@crankycanuck.ca |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 11:17:19AM -0800, Reece Hart wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of an authoritative, complete, and current license
> comparison? After a lot of trolling, I've been able to satisfy one or
> two of those criteria, but not all.
The FSF has maintained a list of many licenses for years. It's at
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/>.
Certified Open Source Initiative licenses are listed at
<http://opensource.org/licenses>.
I think those are the two main resources for this topic.
> It's disappointing that we as a community have yet to converge on just a
> few licenses that differ only by the few characteristics that *really*
> matter (e.g., virality, commercializability, code
Your problem in the above is that your definitions of "community" and
"really matter" may not be congruent with others'.
A
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Calfee | 2008-02-01 20:06:33 | [Pljava-dev] pljava.dll - bogus error |
| Previous Message | Steve Atkins | 2008-02-01 19:30:21 | Re: Good F/OSS license summary |