>Ok, I know this has been talked about before, but I have some >questions. OK! >1- If this project is supposed to use the BSD license, why does the >sourceforge page say the MIT license? I am not sure where the BSD thing came from. MIT was the license I originally chose. >2- Doesn't the license need to be included in the code that is being >written? Eh. It probably should. OTOH, since the license (as you say below) is exceptionally liberal, I don't think that it makes any difference. It isn't like we actually could become upset with someone for misusing our code. >3- If it is not there, does it matter, since the BSD license says, for >the most part, do what ever you want with our code? Right. >4- Are there any other licenses that are acceptable to be used within >the OBOS project, like the Apache license, which, looks very similar to >the BSD license, from what I've seen? There are a couple of ways I could take this question... If you mean "Can we use code that is under the Apache license?", then sure. If you mean "I don't like MIT, can I contribute code under, say, GPL?" than the answer is no. >The reason I asked, is that the majority of the code that I see in the >OBOS CVS repository, does not contain a license. Also, there are some >nice open source lbraries out in the world, that might be nice to >include in OBOS for future relases, and I want to know which would be >allowed. Sure. So long as the licensing isn't too restrictive, that would be fine. Yes, I consider GPL to be too restrictive. Before anyone jumps on me, let me clarify it this way - I know that we can ship GPL'ed packages (say, gawk). But we will not have any binaries that must link with any GPL'ed code.