[License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Thu Mar 7 06:09:46 UTC 2013

The license isn't really "standing up" when you have to file a writ of certiorari after a judge throws his hands up at the license text and pronounces it to be tantamount to a dedication to the public domain. That was no easy appeal to win, and the Open Source developer was seriously damaged by the cost and the 5-year process. It cost me a good deal of time and work too.

A license that stands up would, I hope, require much less time to dispute and would be parsed as intended by the court.

So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the poor Open Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic 1.0 is not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in progress. We have much worse.



John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

>Bruce Perens scripsit:
>And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities and
>a prototypical crayon license, is one of the few that has been tested
>in court -- and stood up.

Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20130306/f0747457/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list