ii package license

[Petr Šabata]

Dear list,

I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the
package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license.
This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed
code, the following script:

http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh

I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package
license.  Would that be correct?

Thanks in advance,
Petr

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784589

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Petr Šabata <contyk(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Dear list,
>
>  I'm packaging the ii IRC client [1] for Fedora and the
>  package reviewer has expressed concerns about its license.
>  This software includes, in addition to the main MIT-licensed
>  code, the following script:
>
>  http://hg.suckless.org/ii/file/d163c8917af7/query.sh
>
>  I've decided to use "MIT and Public domain" as the package
>  license.  Would that be correct? 
I don't think Public Domain is correct.  That normally needs to be
expressly specified and the author clearly isn't doing that.

It's similar to WTFPL, but not enough to be called that.  Spot is
at FOSDEM, so this will probably need to wait until he looks it
over.  If it were me, I'd ask upstream to relicense it to something
a bit more standard in any case.

josh

[Matej Cepl]

On 3.2.2012 12:57, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  It's similar to WTFPL, but not enough to be called that.  Spot
> is
>  at FOSDEM, so this will probably need to wait until he looks it
>  over.  If it were me, I'd ask upstream to relicense it to something
>  a bit more standard in any case. 
"ask upstream"? You must be new here.

This is from the upstream which one of his programs have this as 
enlisted advantage of the program: "Because dwm is customized through 
editing its source code, it’s pointless to make binary packages of it. 
This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid 
questions."

Matěj

[Petr Šabata]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:05:43PM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>  On 3.2.2012 12:57, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  >It's similar to WTFPL, but not enough to be called that.  Spot is
>  >at FOSDEM, so this will probably need to wait until he looks it
>  >over.  If it were me, I'd ask upstream to relicense it to something
>  >a bit more standard in any case.
>  
>  "ask upstream"? You must be new here.
>  
>  This is from the upstream which one of his programs have this as
>  enlisted advantage of the program: "Because dwm is customized
>  through editing its source code, it’s pointless to make binary
>  packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No
>  novices asking stupid questions."
>  
>  Matěj 
Well, dwm's mostly work of other SL folks and this is a different
story :) Oh, and it's also in Fedora, if you're interested.

-P