license-ish vs. Bill of Rights-ish

[Steve Mallett]

I'd like to get some feedback on an assumption I'm making in something I'm 
writing:

All philosophy........
If you were writing the GPL today...
1) having seen a big software company (Microsoft) fight off legal battles 
with the US Gov't [let alone you, or the FSF on your behalf], and,
2) having seen other companies recently heed pressure from people involved 
with this list to bring their activies in line with licensed software they 
were working from/with and under the intent of 'opensource',

... would you write it in strict legal terms (license-ish) or stick to clear 
language like the OpenSource Definiton (Bill of Rights-ish)?


Some of my thoughts here are:
1) that _part_ of the success of the GPL is that as one of the most discussed 
licenses it is better _understood_  than others,
2) because it is better understood it is picked as the preferred license for 
software, thus increasing the breadth of people knowledgable in its intent, 
etc etc,
3) clear language and legalese are both open to interpretation. Yet isn't it 
better for all to understand the license's intent rather than write it in 
strict legal terms which are confusing at the best of times?
4) The OSD is popular as a manifesto because it is clear and understandable.

*I am _not_ proposing that the GPL, the OSD, or any other such thing be 
changed.   I have some ideas I'm moulding about something else, but it is 
directly applicable with y'all.
-- 
Steve Mallett | Stable, Open-Source Apps 
steve at opensourcedirectory.com | http://OSDir.org 
webmaster at opensource.org
http://open5ource.net   <GPG, Voice, etc.>


"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good."
        -- Mohandas Gandhi
	





--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3