On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:37:38PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Is distribution of the *link* to the license sufficient compliance with this > requirement?
For licenses that appear literally to require inclusion of a copy of the license text? I have wondered whether we ought to start treating that as a reasonable modern interpretation of such requirements, given that many developers aren't bothering to bundle license texts to begin with. - RF > > /Larry (from my tablet and brief) > > Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Karl Fogel wrote: > >>> Many coders expect to find plaintext license terms in a LICENSE or > >>> COPYING file, directly in the source tree. > >> > >> I'd count that as another reason *not* to provide plain text license > >> files. I think it would be FAR more useful to have a simple license > >> statement in the source tree of each program that points to the OFFICIAL > >> version of that license on the OSI website. This also avoids the > >> duplication of text -- with potential transcription or legal errors -- in > >> many source code trees, and completely avoids the need to actually read > >> the licenses if one trusts OSI. > >> > >> Doesn't CC do that, in a way, with their license logos? > > > >More specifically, CC does it with the requirement in the license that > >attribution notices link to the canonical text. Many OSS software > >licenses, unfortunately, require distribution of the actual text of > >the license. > > > >Luis > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
