On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Luis Villa ([email protected]): >> 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.
The actual text of the license is an option for CC licenses, but a link is almost always used instead (one or the other is required). > Not an objection, but just as a reminder: Licensor can waive that > requirement. > > Years ago, I reminded readers on this mailing list that possibly useful > reciprocal licences for non-software use by people disliking GFDL > include GPLv2, and that FSF even published a piece explaining the > advantages before they fell in love with GFDL: > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html > > I was told, here: You shouldn't do that. That's dumb, because then > redistributors would need to include the full text of GPL. > > Um, hello? Waiver. GFDL requires copy of license text. Anyway, I like the option to refer to a license rather than include it (CC licenses are specific about how to refer, MPL2 just says to state how to obtain a copy; I don't know which is better) and if license does not give this option, consider requirement to include a copy a not compelling reason to use an incompatible license. It is too bad "non-software" licenses constitute a largely separate universe to the extent it is for such reasons. And +1 to a repository of .txt renditions. Mike _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
