MIT or BSD-2-clause?

[anthonyfok]

I just noticed that:

• At the bottom of README.md, it says the license is MIT.
• However, the LICENSE file contains the BSD-2-clause license.

Thanks!

[davecheney]

The goal is to have a permissive licence for this package, I chose MIT when
I created the package via github's automated form.

I'm not a language lawyer. If you can suggest a fix I would be happy to
take a PR.

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Anthony Fok notifications@github.com
wrote:

I just noticed that:

• At the bottomof README.md, it says the license is MIT.
• However, the LICENSE file contains the BSD-2-clause license.

Thanks!

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#41, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAAcA9ZpefQ2fBFeXn-ZB6zec8DjLcK8ks5qJrLRgaJpZM4Iw5XD
.

[anthonyfok]

Hi Dave,

The goal is to have a permissive licence for this package, I chose MIT when
I created the package via github's automated form.

I'm not a language lawyer. If you can suggest a fix I would be happy to
take a PR.

I would be happy to make a PR, but there are two possible but opposite solutions:

1. Change README.md to say the licence is "BSD-2-clase".
2. Replace the licence text in the LICENSE file with that of the MIT licence. However, if we do this, github.com/pkg/errors and github.com/pkg/sftp would have different licences. (The current LICENSE file in github.com/pkg/sftp contains the text of the BSD-2-clause" licence.)

So, when you have time, could you please take a look at the following two licences:

• https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
• https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause

and see which one you like better? They are both very permissive licences. :-)

(I was packaging pkg/errors for Debian as pkg/sftp now depends on it. Debian's Go packaging helper dh-make-golang and friends rather intelligently determined the licence from the LICENSE file and automatically filled in the fields in the debian/copyright file, but then README.md says otherwise, so that's why I am here. 😄)

[davecheney]

The text in the LICENSE file is the authoritative copy, we cannot change
that.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Anthony Fok notifications@github.com
wrote:

Hi Dave,

The goal is to have a permissive licence for this package, I chose MIT when
I created the package via github's automated form.

I'm not a language lawyer. If you can suggest a fix I would be happy to
take a PR.

I would be happy to make a PR, but there are two possible but opposite
solutions:

Change README.md to say the licence is "BSD-2-clase".
2.

Replace the licence text in the LICENSE file with that of the MIT
licence. However, if we do this, github.com/pkg/errors and
github.com/pkg/sftp would have different licences. (The current LICENSE
file in github.com/pkg/sftp contains the text of the BSD-2-clause"
licence.)

So, when you have time, could you please take a look at the following two
licences:

• https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
• https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause

and see which one you like better? They are both very permissive licences.
:-)

(I was packaging pkg/errors for Debian as pkg/sftp now depends on it.
Debian's Go packaging helper dh-make-golang and friends rather
intelligently determined the licence from the LICENSE file and
automatically filled in the fields in the debian/copyright file, but then
README.md says otherwise, so that's why I am here. 😄)

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#41 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAAcA8MATI6A_JD683AEBCtBcD2b0jHmks5qJvk3gaJpZM4Iw5XD
.

[anthonyfok]

The text in the LICENSE file is the authoritative copy, we cannot change that.

Thank you for the clarification!

Please see Pull Request #42 where the reference to "MIT" is changed to "BSD-2-Clause".

Cheers,
Anthony