You see, even with something as simple as trying to indicate "widely available and recognised free software licencing agreements"--Ie. What I was trying to indicate when I used "GPL licences"--you need a lawyer to verify what you are saying.
The FSF has found cause to make distinctions regarding the following 28 free software licence agreements (from FSF):
- GNU GPL.
- GNU LGPL
- Licence of Guile
- License of the run-time units of the GNU Ada compiler
- X11 licence
- Expat Licence
- Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License
- Public Domain
- Cryptix General License
- Modified BSD license
- License of ZLib
- License of the iMatix Standard Function Library
- W3C Software Notice and License
- Berkeley Database License (aka the Sleepycat Software Product License)
- OpenLDAP License, Version 2.7
- License of Python 1.6a2 and earlier versions
- License of Python 2.0.1, 2.1.1, and newer versions
- License of Perl
- Clarified Artistic License
- Zope Public License version 2.0
- Intel Open Source License (as published by OSI)
- License of Netscape Javascript
- eCos license version 2.0
- Eiffel Forum License, version 2
- License of Vim, Version 6.1 or later
- Boost Software License
- EU DataGrid Software License
- The license of Ruby
And those are just the "GPL compatible" ones! There is another list of 30+ "incompatible" ones, and 20 or so more including the original "Artistic licence", that are not considered "free software licences" at all.
Me, I'm just a layman. I ain't about to argue with the FSF.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.