David Gerard wrote: > Remember that licenses are not merely a game of Nomic, but responses > to a given legal threat model. >
Not necessarily a "given" legal threat, but an even weaker "perceived" legal threat. > In this case, the threat model is: what if some raving and/or > malicious lunatic who has copyright on a piece of this thing drags > someone into court over it? > Copyright paranoia exists as a socially acceptable response to raving lunatics. > The reason for the license is so that the defendant can point at the > license and say "I can do this per the license." (And probably "and > per common practice," because law is squishier than Nomic.) > That, but also it gives a legal right of action as plaintiffs to the lunatics. > So the aims of the suggested terms for relicensing will not be to > achieve some theoretical outcome that makes everyone as happy as > possible, but to provide sufficient results to be usable in terms of: > > 1. giving reusers confidence they can defend themselves against a > raving and/or malicious lunatic in court; > 2. not pissing off so much of the community they fork. > > That makes sense. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
