[License-discuss] plain text license versions?
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Sep 6 21:33:53 UTC 2012
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
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:
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.
More information about the License-discuss