LICENSE: base-files and use of CC0 - public domain
Fri Oct 26 08:15:00 GMT 2012
On Oct 26 09:43, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 26 02:27, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > 2012-10-26 00:20 David Sastre Medina
> > On 2012-10-25 23:20, David Sastre Medina wrote:
> > | > https://github.com/dsastrem/base-files.git
> > |
> > | Most probably, a wrong assumption on my side.
> > No worries, it caught my attention as it was an unusual choice, considering
> > the existing licencing policy in Open Source software projects.
> > | License in the base-files package contents.
> > | What would be more appropriate? GPLv3?
> > The relevant big ones are GPL, BSD-2-clause, MIT and Apache. Trying to
> > avoid license fragmentation is always a good move.
> Despite all the arguments, here's a question: If PD is such a bad idea,
> why is Fedora's setup package, which provides much the same service
> as our base-files package, PD licensed as well?
> Why on earth should it be required to put really simple startup scripts
> under more complex than the absolute necessary licenses?
Actually, it's kind of a shame that such files have to be put under
a license at all. There should be a "too obvious to license" rule.
Anyway, if all else fails, I'd prefer a 2-BSD license for these files.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-apps