RE: Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My main suggestion, however, was that some of the text - - the legal stuff - - should be re-written so it is clear that an opinion of the author is being expressed rather than a legal opinion being passed on by the author. I agree that being able to distinguish which is which will benefit the readers. But, do you think that readers will see it as the latter when there is no reference to case law and the author states that he is not a law professional? I suggested adding references. But from your point of view, that might make matters worse. (It is certainly possible to provide references to obsolete and superseded case law, appearing to offer rigorous, researched legal guidance, while being inaccurate.) I hope my point is taken as constructive. I would never argue that only lawyers should speak on legal matters; journalists and some politicians frequently do a fine job. The critical factor may be to stay within a context (...difficult as that might be in some contexts on the Internet...) where a reader is likely to conclude that they are reading commentary, opinion, or belief, but not legal advice. I won't dispute that only lawyers are qualified to give good legal advice. But I still don't know why you object to writing which appears to be legal advice. If there are inaccuracies in the page, let's see them corrected. Saying the page sounds too professional and accurate is strange criticism. Perhaps an admonition should have been directed to the readers, since problems only arise if the purpose of the web page is misconstrued by them. The author has already taken honest steps to minimize that possibility and I think that approaches the limit of what can be done, unless a blank web page is what you advocate.
RE: Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My main suggestion, however, was that some of the text - - the legal stuff - - should be re-written so it is clear that an opinion of the author is being expressed rather than a legal opinion being passed on by the author. I agree that being able to distinguish which is which will benefit the readers. But, do you think that readers will see it as the latter when there is no reference to case law and the author states that he is not a law professional? I suggested adding references. But from your point of view, that might make matters worse. (It is certainly possible to provide references to obsolete and superseded case law, appearing to offer rigorous, researched legal guidance, while being inaccurate.) Actually, adding case law is a good idea. I would recommend a conspicuous disclaimer as a header and footer on the page. I forget whether I pointed to the one at www.ecommercetax.com as an example. I hope my point is taken as constructive. I would never argue that only lawyers should speak on legal matters; journalists and some politicians frequently do a fine job. The critical factor may be to stay within a context (...difficult as that might be in some contexts on the Internet...) where a reader is likely to conclude that they are reading commentary, opinion, or belief, but not legal advice. I won't dispute that only lawyers are qualified to give good legal advice. But I still don't know why you object to writing which appears to be legal advice. If there are inaccuracies in the page, let's see them corrected. Saying the page sounds too professional and accurate is strange criticism. Agreed. It's strange, but the law is strange sometimes. Perhaps an admonition should have been directed to the readers, since problems only arise if the purpose of the web page is misconstrued by them. The author has already taken honest steps to minimize that possibility and I think that approaches the limit of what can be done, unless a blank web page is what you advocate. Well, on my first look at the web page, there were more than a couple of inaccuracies. If, however, one is merely expressing an opinion about the law, it doesn't matter as much. BTW, if you look at the disclaimer on the website I noted above, you might be surprised to find out that someone may have missed it when the y recently published a book directing readers to the website for legal opinions on e-commerce tax issues. (I mention this just to illustrate how this can get out of hand quickly). I hope this helps. Rod
Re: Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Actually, adding case law is a good idea. I would recommend a conspicuous disclaimer as a header and footer on the page. I forget whether I pointed to the one at www.ecommercetax.com as an example. I note that this disclaimer does *not* say the contents of the pages are opinion, and refers to them as information, a word usually taken to imply the factuality (ordinary sense of fact, not trial lawyer's sense of fact) of the content: information is knowledge of a particular kind, and what is knowledge must be true (otherwise it is indeed mere opinion or belief). Well, on my first look at the web page, there were more than a couple of inaccuracies. Well, mention them and hopefully they'll get fixed. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
RE: Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
Rod wrote: Oh, my! I most defintely do not want to discourage you, and the chart is not a bad idea, but your commentary is written as if you ARE dispensing legal advice. Rod, you are a very frequent contributor to the list, and I don't want to discourage you. But... you have never criticized a non-lawyer for posting to license-discuss. What is different about a web page? It has a very clear, prominent statement that the author is not a lawyer and it is not legal advice (even though such statements are not required.) This is a great resource! I like the page as it is, legalistic wording and all. To make it an even better resource, can I suggest: - Provide links/references for the some people think or other opinions. This is what readers will need to track down case law and form clearer opinions. - For the community likes it item, use the counts of license types at sourceforge.net and/or freshmeat.net. GPL is the most popular, so you can remove the '?' for that one I think. - Add more licenses. (I wouldn't try to expand the table horizontally, just vertically.) Are you going to do only Free software licenses, not Open Source? - Put the Explanations of columns further up on the page, and set it as H1 - Change the Does not restrict You! to be Does not restrict the copyright holder. (Software users, not just authors, will be reading the page too.) I think the paragraph following is mostly ok, but the first sentence has the opposite meaning from what you intend. - The page isn't overly long right now, but if it grows, you might want to split some of the sections into separate HTML pages. Keep up the good work! Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
I've written a table comparing a few of the more frequently chosen licenses. http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html Doubtless, the inaccuracies and biases presented therein will frustrate some people, but I have observed a need for such a table, and earlier revisions of this document have satisfied the need, so now I'm going to make it public. I've tried to be clear about the places where my ignorance and bias show through. I very much appreciate corrections and suggestions. Regards, Zooko
Re: Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
begin [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotation: I've written a table comparing a few of the more frequently chosen licenses. http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html Doubtless, the inaccuracies and biases presented therein will frustrate some people, but I have observed a need for such a table, and earlier revisions of this document have satisfied the need, so now I'm going to make it public. Zooko, I like it. A lot. It has the advantage of brevity and clarity, those being rare virtues in areas frequented by gentlemen of the Bar. If you can fit the concept into such a gem of conciseness, you could explain that it's not just _dislike of the unfamiliar_, but also the mounting problem of licence combinations in derivative works. Suggestion: Put some sort of licence statement for the _page_ at the bottom. It would be nice to know under what conditions one might mirror your work. If you're at a loss for terms that you think might be applicable, some options are at the bottom of these pages: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/essays/newlug.html http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/security/ftp-daemons I'll be glad to discuss my rationale for each, off-list. I'm not sure it's on-topic for this forum (or of interest to it). -- Cheers, I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music, [EMAIL PROTECTED] denigrate means 'put down'. -- Bob Newhart
RE: Quick Reference For Choosing a Free Software License
Oh, my! I most defintely do not want to discourage you, and the chart is not a bad idea, but your commentary is written as if you ARE dispensing legal advice. You use phrases like a court might decide that and it has no legal effect too frequently. I would suggest rewriting some of the material you have so that it is clearly written as commentary or opinion. With regard to the chart, why is the public domain list at all since the list denotes licenses? It is not correct to portray the public domain as anything like a software license. Finally, some of your statements appear to be misleading. For example, The License Does Not Restrict You! It Only Restricts Other People is not legally sound, nor is the paragraph following it. There might be a way to express your point clearly and accurately, but, first, you need to make it less legalistic. Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've written a table comparing a few of the more frequently chosen licenses. http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html Doubtless, the inaccuracies and biases presented therein will frustrate some people, but I have observed a need for such a table, and earlier revisions of this document have satisfied the need, so now I'm going to make it public. I've tried to be clear about the places where my ignorance and bias show through. I very much appreciate corrections and suggestions. Regards, Zooko
