[License-discuss] plain text license versions?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Luis Villa (luis at tieguy.org):

> More specifically, CC does it with the requirement in the license that
> attribution notices link to the canonical text. Many OSS software
> licenses, unfortunately, require distribution of the actual text of
> the license.

Not an objection, but just as a reminder:  Licensor can waive that
requirement.

Years ago, I reminded readers on this mailing list that possibly useful
reciprocal licences for non-software use by people disliking GFDL
include GPLv2, and that FSF even published a piece explaining the
advantages before they fell in love with GFDL:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html

I was told, here:  You shouldn't do that.  That's dumb, because then 
redistributors would need to include the full text of GPL.

Um, hello?  Waiver.