[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: at which level, is adequate licensing documentation required?
|
From: |
bill-auger |
|
Subject: |
Re: at which level, is adequate licensing documentation required? |
|
Date: |
Thu, 1 Jul 2021 00:25:03 -0400 |
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:58:38 -0400 Richard wrote:
> Should B2 reject sites that say nothing about licensing options?
yes, i think so - one of the criteria should require adequate
documentation, at least for for the most common Free Software
licenses - non-free licenses and "no license" are permitted at
the B level (A4 requires free licenses only); so the
documentation should not need to be exhaustive - just a decent
effort to explain the ones that 98% of projects use (BSDs,
MITs, GPLs, MPLs, apaches, CCs, etc)
the github choose-a-license documentation is freely-licensed; and
we agreed that it is comprehensive enough; though you thought
there were a few discrepancies regarding the GPLs - with a bit
of tweaking, the choose-a-license documentation could be a
simple drop-in for B2-1 - so this would not be unreasonable to
ask of hosts; because they would not even need to write it
themselves, only to host it
how about this wording:
> + <li id="B2-1"><p>Explains the most common Free Software licenses,
> + distinguishing between GNU 2 only and GPL 2-or-later,