[License-discuss] what would de-listing of licenses look like?
bruce at perens.com
Thu Mar 7 06:46:49 UTC 2013
It isn't the least bit difficult to diagnose when no lawyer was involved in drafting a license. At the start we had an excuse because no lawyer would help us. The only excuse those licenses have today is disinterest in fixing the problem.
Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:15 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org>
>> Bruce Perens scripsit:
>>> 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.
>> Please itemize.
>I don't think we do anyone any favors by having extensive public
>discussions of the legal/drafting weaknesses of existing licenses, so
>The point stands that some licenses are poorly drafted, and that in a
>perfect world where we could easily identify and evaluate such
>licenses, we would probably no longer publicize/endorse them.
>That said, as Richard pointed out, this is an extremely difficult
>issue to evaluate. It is inherently subjective, and a matter requiring
>expertise. Given that, I see no evidence that OSI (or anyone) could
>perform it in a reasonable, objective, efficient manner, so I'm not
>very interested in pursuing it.
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss at opensource.org
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss