On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Is distribution of the *link* to the license sufficient compliance with this > requirement?
For CC and MPL 2, yes. MIT and many others? The conventional interpretation is "no." Luis > /Larry (from my tablet and brief) > > Luis Villa <l...@tieguy.org> wrote: > >>On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> 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 License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
