On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Matt Amos wrote:
ummm.... good? as long as the explanation doesn't contradict the
license, what is the problem?
The problem is that you've got an impedance mismatch. If you comment
about your license, it can become PART OF your license, which means
that you need to be careful that everything you say has a proper legal
meaning, which breaks the idea of explaining things without using
legalese.
but if the code confuses you then you read the comments for
enlightenment, right?
/* Add one to the length */
length += l;
i don't think you're saying that code without
comments is OK (although a "heated discussion" to have on another day,
perhaps), so why should a license without an explanation be OK?
Code: interpreted by computer; comments: interpreted by a human.
License: interpreted by a human; comments: interpreted by a human.
And my point from above is that the barrier between the two is not
hard and fast.
did you come out of steve's evil basement portal of dooom? :-P
I don't understand why people think steve has an evil portal of doom
in his basement. It's in his attic.
--
Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog -
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson
r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
