Re: Re: Æsthetic Permissive License - For Approval
Sean B. Palmer
sean at miscoranda.com
Fri Dec 28 18:45:01 UTC 2007
On Dec 28, 2007 6:04 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Am I an entity now?
Yes. I took the term "entity" from the OSI approved Fair License:
"Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is
retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is
notified of this instrument."
Did you not review this license?
> Since when is a license an "instrument"?
Again, this is a term taken from the Fair License.
> What about all the other IP rights that might be embodied in a work?
As far as I was able to tell from reading the OSD, only the rights
that I enumerated were required to be enumerated.
> Why are we wasting our time on this?
I set the rationale out in my original submission message:
And I'd be willing to expand upon it, but given that you've already
classified this as a waste of time I'm not sure that your opinion is
malleable enough to be worth the effort. This is disheartening, but
perhaps it was simply hyperbole to encode a very strong professional
opinion? It seems to me an impolite rhetoric.
Programmers don't like licenses that seem like a waste of bytes, and
since they're not lawyers it's very difficult to see why what seem
like verbose licenses are required. Just one example:
"I think that people really use software licenses to express
intentions, and don't really read the details of the licenses. So I
think that licenses should be made as simple as possible, so that they
don't disagree with intentions…"
That's the short of it.
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
More information about the License-review