Robert Samuel White sez: > I agree with you, Lewis. That is selfish of me to say you cannot sell > my free software.
I didn't say it was selfish. I said the license does not conform with the open source community. Questions of whether something is "selfish" are a little beyond the scope of this list. > I'll take that out of the license right now. Sarcasm, or..? > I still want to see my license approved because I think there is a need > for it. I think it would even serve the needs of Henry Piffers, who > just asked a question on the list with similar concerns that I had. > > I think the Simplified Artistic License serves the needs of the artists > who want a simple yet effective open source license. What does it solve that the Attribution Assurance license doesn't? > I don't mean to create controversy and I am just going to let this go. > I suppose it's not important that my license be approved by OSI. I just > wanted it to be because I *do* support open source software, but I > suppose me offering my software for free didn't show you that. I guess my last email *was* a little too snappy. Your effort is actually much appreciated and I should have had a little consideration before flaming. My point still mostly stands; the license doesn't conform to the OSD. With one minor change it would (and be compatible with the GPL, which would make it useful to a lot more people). Lewis -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
