BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
Donovan Hawkins
hawkins at cephira.com
Wed Oct 17 00:04:07 UTC 2007
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Chris Travers wrote:
> I would add that the license needs to be as short as possible.
> Clarity is not always found in length. (Quite frankly it is unclear
> to me whether the AFL requires source code redistribution in verbatim
> copying relating to a collective work, as this would involve someone
> sublicensing the original work to downstream licensees.)
If a license replaces just BSDL (or just MIT, etc), then it should be
pretty darned short. If it were modular to the point that it replaced
most of the permissive licenses, I think it could be significantly longer.
To address people who would be unhappy with the length, having a "plain
English" description (a la Creative Commons) would be fairly effective.
"Efficient" is critical. "Short" may or may not be, though some people
might insist on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology, for while the
hawkins at cephira.com hazards of physics drop off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com biological ones grow exponentially."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list