Re: Re: Æsthetic Permissive License - For Approval

Sean B. Palmer sean at
Fri Dec 28 14:56:36 UTC 2007

On Dec 20, 2007 3:43 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson at> wrote:

> Write the license you want to write.

Given all this good advice, I hereby modify my submission to:

Copyright <Year>, <Entity Name and Optional Metadata>

Entities may copy, modify, distribute, sell, and use this work, without
warranty, provided this entire instrument is preserved as a notice.

The normative version of which is at:
Last-Modified: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:10:06 GMT
SHA1: 3ec2f90a88af01c232648656cbba4ce21783d3cd

And the previous version of which is persistently archived here:

I'm also considering suggested name changes.

The 30 days of discussion is, I presume, counted from the initial
submission only. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> Better for you to have a license that makes you happy rather than
> one that makes us happy and yet gets you no users.

Absolutely, though this license's interested users value OSI approval.
Sites such as the Python Package Index and SourceForge Trove, for
example, only enumerate OSI approved licenses to select, I've been

Since I'm not a lawyer, I presume that users will appreciate any
available stringent license review, especially given that testing a
license in the judicial system is hardly possible for a new license.

My submission has generated a surprising amount of positive feedback
in private, so I think I've hit the nail on the head at least in

Sean B. Palmer,

More information about the License-review mailing list