[repost] [j at uriah.heep.sax.de: For Approval: The beer-ware license]

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Joerg Wunsch (j at uriah.heep.sax.de):

> I would at least consider it polite to get an answer then, instead of
> being ignored.

In an ideal world, this would happen -- even though we're all
volunteers, and though (as you may or may not be aware) most
participants on this mailing list have no institutional connection with
OSI, but merely are sympathetic with, and attempt to assist, its aims.
(Just to be clear, I for one am not an OSI spokesman.)

This, alas, not being an ideal world, subscribers will often put off or
disregard posts that don't especially interest them.  (I'm not intending
any offence in saying this; I'm just trying to accurately describe what
occurs.)

One of its explicit aims, by the way, is to discourage licence 
proliferation.  Its first step in that area has been to classify
proposed licences into five descriptive categories:

    * Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities
    * Special purpose licenses
    * Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses
    * Non-reusable licenses
    * Other/Miscellaneous licenses

I suspect Kamp's will immediately -- if OSI wastes time on evaluating it
--  end up in the "Licenses that are redundant with more popular
licenses" category.

> However, some people insist on blessed licenses even though it's
> "obviously" compliant in your opinion.

So, you see, this might be one reason why basically pointless licences
very often end up getting ignored on this mailing list:  You (speaking
for Mr. Kamp) insist that a basically pointless licence must be
"blessed", and summarily reject suggestions that it be junked in favour
of a better and more-standard one.  

I guess you think _our_ time and trouble has no value, right?

> This is not obvios at all to me.  What is it needed for?  Who needs
> it?

Mr. Kamp is willing to run the risk of being sued for warranty
obligations over a work that he passes out in public for no charge, and
over whose uses he has no control whatsoever?  Bold man.

> The more lines, the higher will be the salary for the lawyer.

Sorry, no.  Zero salary for a lawyer is required to pick a simple,
standard licence.

I'm now done with this discussion.  Best of luck to Mr. Kamp, however.

(My larger point is addressed not to Mr. Wunsch, but rather to the OSI:
A more efficient means of dealing with pointless licence submissions
would be useful -- though maybe ignoring them _is_ the right answer.  ;-> )