That's unfortunate, because I advise it all the time for all licenses. Anything more is a waste of time. And my clients have never been sued for posting a link instead of a license. Maybe we are lucky???
/Larry (from my tablet and brief) Luis Villa <l...@tieguy.org> wrote: >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
