On Thu, 6 May 2004, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the > > open-source specification is so rigid. > > I don't really understand it either. I mean, I know how we got here > step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much > sense.
The license is supposed to be a legal document. Legal concepts (e.g., public domain or software license), default warranties (that we have to disclaim), and tricks to get around legal licensing limitations (e.g., patents) change all the time. Thus, the number of licenses submitted for OSI approval will probably continue to grow. One alternative is what Creative Commons are trying to do. They control creation of licenses and, hence, are able to limit their growth (and variety) with a simple, common-sense-based interface. > Sources which may not be distributed are not open source. I > strongly suggest that you not use that term. ... on this mailing list which is OSI-specific and uses OSI-specific terminology. Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
