[License-discuss] plain text license versions?

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> 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.

The actual text of the license is an option for CC licenses, but a
link is almost always used instead (one or the other is required).

> 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.

GFDL requires copy of license text.

Anyway, I like the option to refer to a license rather than include it
(CC licenses are specific about how to refer, MPL2 just says to state
how to obtain a copy; I don't know which is better) and if license
does not give this option, consider requirement to include a copy a
not compelling reason to use an incompatible license. It is too bad
"non-software" licenses constitute a largely separate universe to the
extent it is for such reasons.

And +1 to a repository of .txt renditions.

Mike