On Apr 7, 6:36 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote: > > Actually, my current licence can be found here: > >https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE. Whaddaya think > > about this, Useneters? > > I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your > software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently > means that you are responsible for the performance of your software. > > Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the > MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner? > > E.g.http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT > > Software licencing is a solved problem. Do you really think that people > write three or four paragraph licences because they *like* legal > boilerplate? Did you imagine that you were the first person to think, "I > know! I'll write a one-liner telling people they can do whatever they > want with my software! Nothing can possibly go wrong!"? > > Use a known, tested, working solution, and save yourself the pain. > > -- > Steven
MIT is actually the best one I've seen so far. I'm updating LICENCE. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
