[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

Moritz Maxeiner mm at ucw.sh
Thu Aug 8 21:08:00 UTC 2019

I see. To me those opinions are interesting in and of themselves (especially 
if they're conflicting), but I take both of your points.
I'll refrain from posting further updates on the LSL itself for a while and 
rethink my approach.


On Thursday, 8 August 2019 22:06:39 CEST Pamela Chestek wrote:
> On 8/8/2019 3:57 PM, 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
> >>> License
> >>> 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.
> My opinion is different, I think everything you have done and asked for
> is appropriate for this list. However McCoy is right that you're only
> getting the largesse of people who have the time and inclination to
> respond, each with their own opinion, and you will often get conflicting
> views. So I'm not sure it's the best way to go about drafting a license.
> But it has been a good demonstration of how difficult it is to write a
> good, solid license.
> Pam
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc
> e.org

More information about the License-discuss mailing list