[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License
mm at ucw.sh
Thu Aug 8 20:53:21 UTC 2019
Thank you for clarifying your position and suggesting a course of action,
I'll take both into consideration going forward.
On Thursday, 8 August 2019 21:57:05 CEST Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: License-discuss
> >>[mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Moritz
> >>Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:45 PM
> >>To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source
> >>If I have misunderstood the ML's purpose, I apologize.
> IMHO the mailing list is for discussing issues with existing OSI approved
> licenses, or other issues relevant to interpreting them. It could serve as
> a place to pre-discuss licenses to be later submitted (which is what you
> are trying to do). I'm not sure its purpose is to get you free advice on
> license drafting by lawyers (although such advice is sometimes provided,
> within reason, on mailing list discussions, but usually between lawyers).
> Maybe other lawyers on the list would like to do so, but I wouldn't count
> on it.
> If I were you, I'd instead do the following:
> Outline the gaps you are seeing in existing OSI approved licenses vs what
> your goals are. Explain how you'd like to fill those gaps, not via license
> language, but by discussing the concepts. See how people respond as to:
> whether there are indeed the gaps you see, and whether your goals could be
> met by an OSD-conformant license.
> After that, I'm afraid, you'd likely need to hire a lawyer, if you want a
> license that meets your goals, meets the OSD, and is drafted according to
> good legal standards.
> Other posters may differ; just my opinion.
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-discuss