[License-discuss] Open source license chooser choosealicense.com launched.

Pamela Chestek pamela at chesteklegal.com
Mon Aug 19 13:54:01 UTC 2013

On 8/18/2013 10:21 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual
> license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but
> it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost
> always be) by political or cultural bias.
This can be fixed. Github has asked for patches and no one has reported 
having a patch rejected.
> Also, if a license is really
> too difficult to understand, that is itself useful (for the would-be
> licensor and for the license steward) to find out.
I'm still having a hard time reconciling this with the also-held belief 
that license proliferation is bad. So you would like people to read and 
comprehend, we'll say conservatively the 11 "Popular Licenses," and find 
one that has the major substantive aspects they want but that also does 
not have any aspect that could use some tweaking for their own business 
model -- say, for example, a delayed release date of source code, which 
will mean they will write another license, or find another obscure 
license that does what they want but is obscure for a reason.

I think instead you want licenses to be readily adopted based on 
decision about the major substantive aspects and the rest of it just 
falls where it falls.  And the major substantive aspects are what is 
captured in the summary.


Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com

More information about the License-discuss mailing list