standardize the license?

[raould]

hi, I am paranoid about licensing and prefer licenses which are standard ones e.g. (for FOSS) MIT, BSD, LGPL. Non-standard non-cookie-cutter licenses might presumably be very well intended, but are just legal quagmires. (Even the standard ones are probably not super well tested, but overall have at least been given the once-over by e.g. OSI.) If you could see your way to updating your license to be some very standard one, that would be a happy thing to me. :-)

[kstenerud]

It's the MIT open source license.

[raould]

Thanks. I think people usually put a line at the top of the license that says what license it is intended to be? That way people know that (a) it is intended to be an already vetted one and (b) they know what to diff it against if they are feeling extra paranoid. And (c) I don't know that you should have your last line in there about attribution+smiley as much as i heart smileys, since that means it isn't really sticking to the license, it is actually modifying it I would hazard to guess. Overall IANAL but it doesn't seem to me to really be the MIT license. e.g. http://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/