It isn't the least bit difficult to diagnose when no lawyer was involved in 
drafting a license. At the start we had an excuse because no lawyer would help 
us. The only excuse those licenses have today is disinterest in fixing the 
problem.


Luis Villa <l...@tieguy.org> wrote:

>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.
>
>Luis
>_______________________________________________
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss@opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Reply via email to