Talk:Permissive software license/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed merge

Someone proposed merging this article and Permissive and copyleft licences.

• oppose "permissive" is one topic, and "copyleft" is another. An article that talks about both wouldn't have enough scope to go into enough detail about either. Gronky 12:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I proposed eliminating the permissive and copyleft licences article and merging its content into this article as well as the copyleft article and the general free software license article. mako (talk•contribs) 13:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Merge with Free-software_licence

I am sort of new to Wikipedia and I am actually on a limited time schedule so determining how to suggest a page-merge is something for another day. If someone would be so kind as to file a suggested merge between these 2 articles it would be great. Paalman (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting that this article be renamed from permissive free software licence to permissive license (redirect) per WP:COMMONNAME. From googling:

• "permissive license" 38k hits
• "permissive free software license" less than 2k hits
• "permissive licence" 2k hits
• "permissive free software licence" less than 1k hits

"Permissive license" is by far the most common rendering of this phrase. Also worth noting the current title minus wikipedia:

• "permissive free software licences" -wikipedia less than 300 hits

Also, noun should be singular per WP:NAME. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• Support rename to permissive software license or per nom if this is truly the only use of term. The proposed name is really ambiguous as to the type of license. If you look at the hits on the google search, a good number are for the Microsoft Permissive License or The Aesthetic Permissive License and things like that. Is software the only use of licenses of this type? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since the following comments indicate that there are or may be other uses of the term. I would still support permissive software license if there was any support for something like that. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: In the context of software, the term "permissive license" is pretty much universal; and as far as I can tell, these sorts of blanket licenses are not used in any other industry besides free software. Traditionally, licenses are used to only grant permissions to concrete companies or individuals, but not to the world as a whole. And giving away nearly all rights to anyone is pretty much unheard of (apart from truly public domain content). -- intgr [talk] 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Using a less precise title will lead to topic creep and silly disputes over what exactly "permissive" means and who gets to define it. "Permissive licence" is a well used term in the free software community, but this article is not for that community, this is for a much wider audience. For that audience, it's necessary to clarify that this is about permissive licences from the free software community rather than some general concept of permissiveness in software licences. --Gronky (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - permissive licenses are used for more than just software (free or otherwise); see e.g. Creative Commons. Scog (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are no permissive Creative Commons licenses (besides the "public domain dedication", not technically a license). -- intgr [talk] 08:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure about that: as far as I can see, the CC-BY license is just as permissive as e.g. the 4-clause BSD license. Scog (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Permissive licenses with viral DRM clause?

I was wondering whether there were extremely permissive licenses which allowed inclusion in closed source works, but which virally prohibited Digital Rights Management or restrictions on technical access to code? (and thus whether mention could be made of it in the article)

That would make the license effectively non-permissive. - Apotheon (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: still no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Permissive free software license}} Permissive free software licence → Permissive free software license — Mistake in the article's name — Neustradamus (✉) 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — please see the identical reasoning at Talk:Free software licence#Requested_move. All the same reasons apply here. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In "GPL compatibility" section

"Some licences do not allow derived works to add a restriction that says a redistributor cannot add more restrictions." If I read it correctly, such licenses will become (partial) copyleft and no longer permissive. Shouldn't we mention this part in the Copyleft article instead of here? --Explorer09 (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would move the article to copyleft since I dont see any claim that the licenses listed are permissive. CDDL article calls it a limited copyleft license, and MsPL article dont have any claim on it being permissive or copyleft. MsPL is being called by FSF as a weak copyleft license, and thats about it that I can find. I will move it to copyleft if noone objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 07:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

copyfree

Getting very tired seeing people's edit wars over this. Its not productive and need to stop! Do we want to mention copyfree to the article? Is copyfree relevant to the article? Does it pass WP:OR? Simply put, discuss here, create consensus, and stop warring. Belorn (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant. No, it's not "original research". Can we leave it in the page and move on? - Apotheon (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely relevant to the software license articles, and very helpful. 67.81.140.15 (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Equivalent?

I'd say this page is inaccurate. The MIT and BSD licenses explicitly maintain the author's right to attribution, and are therefore not equivalent to the public domain even in principal. Jmawebb 11:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The MIT and modified BSD licenses do not require attribution or acknowledgment. --75.68.201.229 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. It is the original BSD licence and the revised XFree86 licence that have the attribution requirements. Gronky 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is complete trash, and needs to be completely rewritten looks at this "The liberty to 'make as many copies as you want' is in fact also provided by all copyleft licences. However, unlike both copyleft licences and copyright law, permissive free software licences do not control the licence terms that a derivative work falls under. Nevertheless, the quote describes the permissive licence users' unconcern for the discussion on protection of freedoms." Someone has just taken a shot at the BSD users, with a massive generalisation, this is absolutely pathetic standards. Unfortunately, this bias seems to have infected the philosophy and economics section to an even worse degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.249.204 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

This page says "licences", but most others say "licenses." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.101.238 (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, "licences" is the British spelling; Wikipedia accepts either variety (see WP:ENGVAR for details) -- intgr [talk] 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But there needs to be some kind of consistency.

Indeed. I concur that American spelling might be more appropriate, especially since the topic under discussion originated in the US (Berkeley, CA, specifically). Nevertheless, it's superficial, since the article uses British spelling except for the interwiki links. -- Andytuba (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose the article is changed to use the license spelling since all examples within the article use that way of spelling. The Free Software Foundation use that spelling and all of the licenses discussed in the article use that way of spelling. -- Mbit (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Black Duck data

Black Duck license popularity claims should not be cited as a source on Wikipedia. The data set used is not published, and neither is the software used for doing the actual license tabulation. It is unreproducible and therefore not data at all. Johnsu01 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why that makes a difference. The statements made by Black Duck are published and can be themselves be verified. If we can cite a newspaper article for a statistic, why not Black Duck? TJRC (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)