simpleLinux Open Documentation License (sLODL)

[SamBC]

----- Original Message -----
From: "SamBC" <sambc at nights.force9.co.uk>


> 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.

Sorry, I mean less clear... (bad slip)

>
> 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
> >
>
>