On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ben Tilly <bti...@gmail.com> wrote: > The location of the license text is not a provision of the license. > Some licenses, for instance the GPL, actually say that you have to > distribute the license along with the work. Others leave the matter > silent. Either way the license is an open source license.
Right I realized that the location of the license text isn't a provision of the license. > You may argue that software with an uninterpretable license is not > really open. This is not a problem. Open source does not mean > copyleft. A lot of open source licenses allow people to incorporate > the software in proprietary products, and you don't even have to be > told it is there. And yes that is exactly what I meant. You're right I wasn't really considering the permissive licenses. I can see why not including the license is an important ability for them. > I have heard people who have distributed embedded software with GPLed > components disagree with this. Adding the GPL inside of a device that > nobody can interact with the inside of is pretty useless, and is > frustrating when they are often left fighting for every byte. Given > the number of devices with embedded computers, this is not exactly a > small use case. Another excellent point. Thanks for your insightful post. I can see why people might want to waive the right to require the license. I do still think as an author it's incredibly foolish and counter productive to not include the license text with your work. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss