On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual
license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but
it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost
always be) by political or cultural bias.
This can be fixed. Github has asked for patches and no one has reported
having a patch rejected.
Also, if a license is really
too difficult to understand, that is itself useful (for the would-be
licensor and for the license steward) to find out.
I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief
that license proliferation is bad. So you would like people to read and
comprehend, we'll say conservatively the 11 "Popular Licenses," and find
one that has the major substantive aspects they want but that also does
not have any aspect that could use some tweaking for their own business
model -- say, for example, a delayed release date of source code, which
will mean they will write another license, or find another obscure
license that does what they want but is obscure for a reason.
I think instead you want licenses to be readily adopted based on
decision about the major substantive aspects and the rest of it just
falls where it falls. And the major substantive aspects are what is
captured in the summary.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
