Talk:Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer

Why does the infobox list this license as "free software -- no" when it is OSI-approved, GPL-compatible, and approximately equivalent to two existing free software licenses? If noone answers, I'm changing it. --madmardigan53 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it. --madmardigan53 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

attribution of BSD kernel

"including the original BSD kernel, developed by IBM, Intel and others." -- I'm not sure how much code IBM and Intel contributed to the original BSD kernel, but this phrasing makes it sound like they were the main developers of that kernel, which is obviously not true. --Brouhaha (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

categorization of Wayland license?

While it does not match the MIT-X11 wording, it also does not match the wording for HPND, comparing with Wayland's COPYING file:

Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies[,] [and] that both [that] [the] copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation[, and that the name [of] <copyright holder> [or <related entities>] not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission]. [<copyright holder> makes no representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.]

versus Wayland's wording (every word does count):

Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission. The copyright holders make no representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

One of the two differences (depending on one's fluency in English) may appear arguable; the other is not TEDickey (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment should be at Talk:Wayland_(display_server_protocol)#License --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it belonged here, due to the recent editor's assertion here TEDickey (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]