Radical Suggestion WAS: License Proliferation Dissatisfaction

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> If they're so similar, why should we approve them?  The answer is that
> there may be necessary (or at least very useful) changes, as (I think)
> GPLv3 makes.  But then why should we only allow useful changes if
> they're made to an existing license?  That really doesn't make sense,
> since a new license is new regardless of whether it updates an approved
> license.  So then we should allow useful updates to existing licenses,
> or new licenses that serve a useful purpose.  I think that basically
> brings us the board's current (unstated) stance.  Now, I agree with you
> that not many new licenses will be both OSD-compliant and useful, and I
> think the board and list understand that.
>
> Matthew Flaschen
>   
Because nothing is ever perfect and as a software developer I'm loathe 
to say that there won't be a 1.1 or 2.0 or 3.0 of anything... 

Because I keep hoping that the FSF will wake up and realize that A> 
deodorant is good and B> Legal documents are best if they don't read 
like Ted Kaczynski wrote it on one of his less coherent days.

Because I keep hoping that the ASF will realize that while the ASL 2.0 
is mostly an improvement in terms it is a regression in comprehension 
and make ASL 3.0 a little shorter and a little more in the vernacular of 
the PRIMARY audience which is not the Larry Rosens of the world but the 
Joe Developers (like me) of the world.  (I can clarify this point if its 
truth is not immediately apparent)

Mostly Because having a fork with the FSF where GPL 2.0 works are open 
source but GPL 3.0 works are not just 'cause would be silly and a 
headache for us mere software developers.

Why not?

-andy

-- 
Catch us at Linuxfest Northwest (4/28-4/29) http://linuxfestnorthwest.org
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
http://buni.org