"Sean B. Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Dec 30, 2007 10:32 AM, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Writing new licenses is in general strongly recommended against > > Yeah, I understand. But it proved to be a pretty good way to start a > conversation, and I was interested to see what would happen. It was > also exceptionally fun, though perhaps I'm a rascal to say so.
You're not a rascal to say so: it *is* fun creating new things, and the law can sometimes be a fun toolkit with which to play with building things. The problem is that, while proliferation of diverse works is generally good, proliferation of diverse license terms for those works is mostly bad for everyone involved. Bringing a newly-cobbled set of license terms here for discussion usually implies those license terms are or will be applied to a work, which is generally a bad thing. -- \ "As the evening sky faded from a salmon color to a sort of | `\ flint gray, I thought back to the salmon I caught that morning, | _o__) and how gray he was, and how I named him Flint." -- Jack Handey | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
