<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 4:31\u202fAM Balázs Hámorszky <<a href="mailto:balihb@gmail.com">balihb@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I hereby stand by the original intent of PUWL: to maximize freedom for both authors and users.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is fine. But how you can achieve it _and_ improve on current licenses is less clear. A different license, rather than one widely perceived as better, would not really be a contribution because it would increase license proliferation and the combinatorial problem of multiple licenses on a work and their inter-license compatibility issues.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I respectfully disagree with the notion that only lawyers should have the exclusive right to work on matters that affect the developer community in the legal space.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh no, that's not what I was asking for. I am not a lawyer. I would not, however, issue the release version of a license without one, for fear of it hurting someone. This is not just talk, I have involved lawyers in the work on Post Open.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
That said, I recognize the importance of legal clarity and will take the feedback into account for any future revision.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I acknowledge the additional difficulty. </div></div></div>