> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 20:50:10 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the >> > license? >> >> It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical >> Permission Notice and Disclamer’ [0][1]. It is indeed a lax permissive >> licence, so I see no problem. > > To be clear, there is probably no canonical name for this license. It > is one of many permissive licenses, rather than being "the Permissive > License". > > Permissive licenses typically need to be quoted in full in the Debian > copyright file.
Any licence regardless of its conditions (permissive, copyleft or even nonfree), except the following ones, should be quoted in full, is not it? ,----[ $ ls /usr/share/common-licenses/ ] | Apache-2.0 BSD GFDL-1.2 GPL GPL-2 LGPL LGPL-2.1 | Artistic GFDL GFDL-1.3 GPL-1 GPL-3 LGPL-2 LGPL-3 `----
