nevermind.. mapstraction is using the BSD license template itself. The mention of BSD-style license threw me off.<br><br>I still think it would be a good idea for the main page had a link to the license (unless I overlooked this too).<br>
<br>Sanjiv<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Sanjiv Jivan <<a href="mailto:sanjiv.jivan@gmail.com">sanjiv.jivan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br>I read this post<br> <a href="http://lists.mapstraction.com/htdig.cgi/mapstraction-mapstraction.com/2008-January/000025.html" target="_blank">http://lists.mapstraction.com/htdig.cgi/mapstraction-mapstraction.com/2008-January/000025.html</a><br>
<br>which indicates that maspstraction is intended to have a BSD-style license. Also the headers of the source indicate liberal use, however I think in order to have greater adoption, the mapstraction library should use one of the standard licenses like BSD, MIT, Apache, LGPL etc. and perhaps have a license link on the main project site.<br>
<br>Many organizations do not deal with one-off licenses and a standard license would definitely help.<br><br>Thoughts?<br><br>Thanks,<br><font color="#888888">Sanjiv<br><br><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>