fbkotler at nettaxi.com
Fri Oct 20 14:31:45 UTC 2000
William Abernathy wrote:
> This is my first License-discuss post. Standard apologies preemptively
Jeez, is *everyone* new here? Perhaps you *should* be a lawyer, I think
you've nailed the problems with the Nasm licence perfectly!
> > By "the Software" this licence refers to the complete contents of
> > the NASM archive, excluding this licence document itself, and
> > excluding the contents of the `test' directory.
Except, "does this mean if something in the `test' directory breaks my
machine, I *can* sue?" :)
The Nasm licence may become moot, however. The author who doesn't like
GPL will apparently consider putting Nasm under this license:
Apparently this license has been submitted to OSI for consideration.
It's explicitly "open-source", so will probably pass OSI's scrutiny. It
addresses most of the points that you raise - e.g. defining who "the
authors" are in excruciating detail - practically establishes a
government! I guess it's better than the Nasm licence, tho I fear that
it will turn any development team into a debating-society.
Anyway, I suppose the discussion ought to turn to the dsf license.
More information about the License-discuss