Re: Æsthetic Permissive License - For Approval
zooko at zooko.com
Sun Dec 30 18:36:01 UTC 2007
On Dec 28, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> I think you might find, upon examination, that the reception your
> has received is closer to good-natured approval of your goal of
> but otherwise little or no enthusiasm.
I think the positive feedback that Sean Palmer has received is from a
different set of people than the contributors to this list.
Personally, I would very much like to see an OSI-approved minimal
permissive licence. I am not a lawyer, and not much of a contributor
to this mailing list, but I am an author of open source software.
Whenever I publish software which I want to permissively licence
(which is not infrequently), I use the text of my own "Simple
Permissive Licence" . Unfortunately, if my software gets
registered in certain databases such as freshmeat.net, then the
person registering my software (usually me) has to choose from a pre-
ordained set of licences which are OSI-approved. When I'm faced with
that situation, I choose "BSD" from the list, although the BSD
licence itself doesn't appear anywhere in my source code or docs,
while my Simple Permissive Licence does.
If there were an OSI-approved permissive licence which were
sufficiently close to minimal then I would be able to use that
instead of my Simple Permissive Licence.
By the way, here is the root of the discussion from my attempt to get
my licence OSI-approved in 2004 , and here are your (Rick Moen's)
later comments in 2007 .
 "Permission is hereby granted to any person obtaining a copy of
this work to deal in this work without restriction (including the
rights to use, modify, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies)."
More information about the License-review