At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>>                   THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
>>>               VERSION 2,  SEPTEMBER 2000
>>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
>>"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ directory
>>explicitly marked otherwise, are placed into the public domain."
>>But I can see how that might not fly... :)
>Heh.  One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought
>was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way.

The problem is that the point of having a layperson write it is so that we
can have it in plain English.  If we are going to resort to legalese, we
might as well let a lawyer write it, so it actually IS sound.

Chris Nandor                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source Development Network    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to