On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote: > Instead, I admire the MIT license for its short length and > comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft variation of the MIT > license[2].
I'm not even going to bother reading and reviewing the following license for the following reasons: 1) Contributing to license proliferation is bad. You propose to create another copyleft license which is incompatible with many other widely use copyleft licenses. I canot in good faith even begin to suggest that you continue and have other people use your license. 2) Deciding whether or not to use a license based on its brevity is not useful at all. Liceses that do very simple things, like Expat, can be short because they give everything away. Indeed, PD grants/licenses would be even shorter. Licenses that do complex things, like turning copyright law on its head, have to be long in order to deal properly with the corner cases so the freedom of users is not abridged. Brevity is a virtue, but brevity at the expense of clarity and completeness is counterproductive. 3) Lack of desire to comprehend all of the tenets of a relatively clearly written license (GNU GPL) does not make the license useless, nor does it bode well for writing Free Software licenses in general. If there are specific issues with the GPL, or the need for a general overview, contact competent legal representation and have them explain the license to you. Don Armstrong -- "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
