On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Bruce Perens scripsit:
>> So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the
>> poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet
>> the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this
>> discussion in progress. We have much worse.
> Please itemize.

I don't think we do anyone any favors by having extensive public
discussions of the legal/drafting weaknesses of existing licenses, so
please don't.

The point stands that some licenses are poorly drafted, and that in a
perfect world where we could easily identify and evaluate such
licenses, we would probably no longer publicize/endorse them.

That said, as Richard pointed out, this is an extremely difficult
issue to evaluate. It is inherently subjective, and a matter requiring
expertise. Given that, I see  no evidence that OSI (or anyone) could
perform it in a reasonable, objective, efficient manner, so I'm not
very interested in pursuing it.

License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to