For Approval: Simple Public License (SimPL)

[Chris DiBona]

Also, your desire to make a simpler gpl will just mean another minority
license that no one will adopt. If it is just a simpler gpl, why not use the
gpl and get access to billions of lines of code already under that license,
after all.

By proposing new licenses, you muddy the waters and slow the adoption and
creation of free software and open source software. the world doesn't need
more licenses, it needs way less.

Chirs

On 3/16/07, Richard Fontana <fontana at softwarefreedom.org> wrote:
>
> Jim Sfekas wrote:
> > The SimPL has the same compatibility with other licenses as GPL, with
> all
> > the good and bad that that entails.  It should, therefore, be compatible
> > with GPL, LGPL, X11 License, etc.
>
> It can't be compatible with the GPL, because it has its own copyleft
> provision:
>
> > If you distribute a Derived Work, you must give back to the community
> by:
> [...]
> > - Licensing any Derived Work under the SimPL.
>
> Also,
> > The SimPL continues perpetually, except it ends automatically if:
> [...]
> > - A patent holder prevents you from distributing the software under the
> > terms of the SimPL.
>
> This is more restrictive than GPLv2 section 7 (on which it is presumably
> modeled).
>
> (Unless you mean something nonstandard when you speak of "compatibility".)
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070316/fcd24624/attachment.html>