Wow! I must add that I do not think I would have seen a comment like this 
posted by Bruce Perens 10 years ago. Of course, I completely agree with the 

Rod Dixon

Sent from my iPhone 

On Dec 16, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Bruce Perens <> wrote:

> OSI should deny certification of this license for the reasons already 
> discussed, and because:
>     It is not the product of a legal professional.
> I've been calling these "crayon licenses", taking a line from an old Monty 
> Python sketch about a dog license with the word "dog" crossed out and "cat" 
> written in, in crayon.
> Crayon, in this case, is a metaphor for the poor legal qualification of the 
> authors. Crayon licenses show a lack of understanding of copyright law, 
> license structure, and most important: what would happen if the license were 
> to be interpreted in court. We had an excuse for writing such things in the 
> early days of Open Source when no lawyer would help us. We no longer have 
> that excuse.
> Crayon licenses harm Open Source developers because they don't do what the 
> developer expects. My most poignant experience with one was working on the 
> appeal of Jacobsen v. Katzer. Bob Jacobsen, an innocent Open Source 
> developer, essentially lost his case in the lower court due to the poor 
> drafting of the Artistic License 1.0, one of the initial Open Source 
> licenses, when the judge found it to be tantamount to the public domain. This 
> loss would also have been very damaging to Open Source in general, had it 
> been allowed to stand. Bob suffered very significant damage from this case. 
> We are very fortunate that he persevered, and that we were able to overturn 
> the decision on appeal.
> OSI should no longer approve crayon licenses, due to the potential they have 
> to damage our own community.
>     Thanks
>     Bruce Perens
> <bruce.vcf>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to