English | Lietuviškai




This forum is dedicated to discussing issues related to the use and development of the Peropesis Linux operating system.

Thoughts about importing a package manager

by sskras, Monday, November 14, 2022, 13:45 (13 days ago) @ g

Sure, but I would like to assign a license to it before this.

This brings me to the next question: Licensing the Peropesis data and local code.

Documentation is a data, and in the open source world it's usual to use some type of Creative Commons license for it. Eg. "CC0 v1.0 Universal"

Then shell scripts are more like code. And I tend to use permissive licenses for my shell scripts. Top ones are MIT, BSD and Apache 2.0 licenses.

But my issue is that two of them doesn't deal with patents + the 3rd one deals in a quite complex way (from the point of view of non-law person). So it's hard for me to choose between them.

Recently I found another license which is basically the same, while being crafted by a professional lawyer from the Intellectual Property area Kyle E. Mitchell, and which is a lot more readable by a non-lawyer:

So I want to publish this shell code under Blue Oak Model license. So it gets the appropriate (small) header, so the person who distributes/modifies it further would know what is the deal.

In other words: this is to avoid legal ambiguity in the future.

I think one line should be enough, likes this:

Would you be willing to add such header to your version of the script?
If not, what are your thoughts about the whole license thing?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

Copyright © 2021 - 2022 Peropesis. See license terms.
E-mail: info(at)peropesis.org