[snip] It can't/won't to most people - people who care enough about licensing to make it a focal point of their development strategy - because it's a religion to them. A way of life.
It's unfortunate, I agree, but it certainly wasn't a 'mistake' from the point of view of people who care passionately about licensing issues (yes, those people exist). It's meant to be the very antithesis of 'closed source' or 'proprietary' software. As the majority of that is also 'pay for', issues about freedom to redistribute with few restrictions was *VERY* high on the list of things to codify in 'open source' ideals. [/snip] How about something 'catchy' like .... Source Freedom Rating AF - Available, free ditribution AL - Available, limited ditribution AR - Available, restricted distribution UF - Unavailable, free ditribution UL - Unavailable, limited distribution UR - Unavailable, restricted distribution I think that this captures all of the possibilities, no? Jay -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
