simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)

[SamBC]

Only one I saw was GNU FDL which was even less simple, and had some clauses
I disliked.

sLODL was as simple as I could make it while making it legally watertight
(AFAIK, as IANAL). I did research, and the subsectioning is to make it
easier, and definitions are a legal requirement in many jusirsdictions. What
else was so complex? Long yes, in order to be clear and not confusing. The
only way to make it shorter I could see was to make it clearer.

Any other OS-(or Free-)style licenses you know of, do tell. FDL is
absolutely horrible, but others may be good.

(oh, and while I hope the license is 'simple' that isn't what the name
signifies, it signifies it is originated by the Movement for simpleLinux,
which aims to simplify Linux usage, but the license is a legal document so
can't be that simple)


SamBC

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Johnson" <david at usermode.org>
To: "SamBC" <sambc at nights.force9.co.uk>; <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)


> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, SamBC wrote:
> > Okay, this license is in the queue to be dealt with by the OSI board,
but I
> > would like to start using it meantime without certification, and would
> > appreciate opinions...
>
> It's way too long and complicated to deserve the name "simple". Far
> from it! There are other OSS-like licenses for documentation that
> should fit your needs. Anything wrong with them that you want to use
> this one instead?
>
> --
> David Johnson
> _______________________
> http://www.usermode.org
>