[License-discuss] Shortest copyleft licence

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):
> On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> 
> >Very small benefit, large downside as shown by those who've gotten this
> >wrong.
> 
> Creative Commons seems successful and it does not appear that they have
> ³gotten this wrong².

I should hasten to say that you have a very good point that the Creative
Commons approach has merit, and I wrote my comment far too hastily.

You're right; it would be a good thing if someone skilled in the art
were to attempt that.  Short summaries of existing licences would be a
fine start, though I could swear that there have been a few.

It should be remembered that the CC 'human-readable' summaries are not
the operative texts, though.

(Just to point out:  I didn't say that getting it wrong _must_ follow
the attmept at hyper-simplicity, merely that it happens often enough to
be a warning.)

> >> It should be as easy as SC-BY-SA 1.0 with a clear english (or whatever)
> >> description without some debatable political/social agenda behind it all
> >> like with the FSF/GPL.
> >
> >A copyleft licence without a political/social agenda?  I'll await this
> >with interest.
> 
> CC-BY-SA
> 
> Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, widely accepted and
> used.

Fair enough.  I honestly wish people wouldn't get hung up on the
manifestos, as they are NOOPs in the functioning of the legal
instruments.  I tend to disregard them.