?sthetic Permissive License - For Approval

[Lawrence Rosen]

John Cowan suggested:
> Since the license meets the McQuary limit, it might be useful to use
> it as a .sig, where even the MIT or 2-clause BSD licenses would be
> excessively wordy.
> 
> Perhaps it should be renamed the Email Public License.

The McQuary limit has long ago been satisfied by the simple copyright and
licensing notice:

   Copyright (C) <year> <author or owner>
   Licensed to the public under the XXXX license.

...where XXXX is the name of an OSI-approved or CC-approved license
published on OSI's or CC's website. 

There's no need for a new Email license, especially if it means burdening
email every time we send one to a public list and don't really mind what
happens to our words once we say them.

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:21 PM
> To: Sean B. Palmer
> Cc: Russ Nelson; license-review at opensource.org; www-archive at w3.org
> Subject: Re: Re: ?sthetic Permissive License - For Approval
> 
> Sean B. Palmer scripsit:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, Larry (who is a lawyer but not your lawyer) certainly gave you a
> (a)stringent review.
> 
> Since the license meets the McQuary limit, it might be useful to use
> it as a .sig, where even the MIT or 2-clause BSD licenses would be
> excessively wordy.
> 
> Perhaps it should be renamed the Email Public License.
> 
> --
> You escaped them by the will-death              John Cowan
> and the Way of the Black Wheel.                 cowan at ccil.org
> I could not.  --Great-Souled Sam                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan