[License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Feb 27 08:00:00 UTC 2012

Quoting David Woolley (forums at david-woolley.me.uk):

> Rick Moen wrote:
> >It's called 'realism'.   The reason well written licences have an
> >irreducible complexity about them is that they are obliged to deal with
> >real legal issues, e.g., the way warranty disclaimers are required to be
> The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are
> not professional lawyers.  If they are presented with lots of
> legalese, they are likely to ignore it, as most people do with
> shrink wrap licence agreements, or the legal stuff hidden in low
> contrast, small font links at the bottom of web pages, which the
> designers would rather not have there at all.

1.  The likes of MIT/X should be highly comprehensible as to their
general purport by, say, school leavers, even if they gloss over many of
the details and don't follow the nuances.

2.  A large and underappreciated part of the value of well-known, major 
open source licences lies in the fact that they are broadly understood,
and so do not need to be minutely scrutinised by everyone to understand
what they're about.

> I suspect that licences with lots of legalese discriminate against
> medium size enterprises.

Oh, bushwah.  Any layman who wants to understand in even paranoid levels
of detail the major licences and has two hours to spare can pull down
the PDF of Larry Rosen's book free of charge, among other methods of
arriving at that understanding.

And any of them who cannot comprehend MIT/X after two hours even without
Larry's book probably should rethink running a business.

Cheers,                      Remember: "its" means "it is", and "it's"
Rick Moen                    is the possessive form of "it".
rick at linuxmafia.com                                  -- FakeAPStylebook
McQ!  (4x80)            

More information about the License-discuss mailing list