[Fedora-packaging] Re: Revived License: tag proposal

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Thu Dec 14 17:49:16 UTC 2006

>>>>> "MC" == Matej Cepl <ceplm at seznam.cz> writes:

MC> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:11:11 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III scripst:

>> I have not attempted to pick a list of those common licenses,
>> although I have provided some data on what License: tags are in
>> use.

MC> Certainly I am missing in the list my preferred (and very common)
MC> MIT/X license.

Well, two issues here:

As I wrote in the text you quoted, I wasn't attempting to provide an
exhaustive list of licenses to be standardized; I only listed a few
examples so that I could get feedback on the proposal itself first and
work on the complete list of tags afterwords.  Unfortunately so far
the only comments I've received has been about tags that are missing
form the examples.  So the only thing you should infer from the
purposefully incomplete random list of examples is that it's

But if you want to discuss the license tag to be used for the X11
license, that's OK.  In their commentary on the X11 license, FSF says:

   "This license is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is
    misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software."

and then, referring to the Expat license:

   "It is sometimes ambiguously referred to as the MIT License."

So if we're discussing the tag to use for the X11 license, I think it
would be less problematic to use just "X11" but there's certainly room
for discussion.  Note: I've no idea what to do about the rather large
number of packages tagged "MIT".  Change them to X11 as well?

 - J<

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list