[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Criteria updated to version 1.1
|
From: |
Juuso Lapinlampi |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Criteria updated to version 1.1 |
|
Date: |
Sat, 25 Jun 2016 04:04:25 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:50:03PM -0400, Zak Rogoff wrote:
> Insists that each nontrivial file in a package clearly and unambiguously
> state how it is licensed. (A9)
I am questioning if this needs to be enforceable for Git service
providers, or if an advisory for unambiguous licensing is good enough.
The A2 criteria, "encourages use of GPL 3-or-later as preferred option"
is much more clear in this regard: it's an advisory.
Right now I have bad feelings about this A9 criteria in its current
wording.