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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Juergen Weigert (jw at suse.de):

> The beer-ware license was adopted by at least three other 
> authors including Joerg.  These authors (and projects
> accepting such licensed code) would not consider it pointless, would they?

They're entitled to their view, but I'd be loathe to let _them_ waste my
time, too.  (However, on their behalf, I'll say that at least _they_
aren't chewing up license-review's time on yet another gratuitously
different permissive licence.)

> Ommission of a warranty disclamer may endanger the author. 
> Such dangers sould be a valid justification for disapproval. 
> Unfortunalty this is out of scope of the The Open Source Definition. 

I didn't say this had anything to do with OSD-conformance (and, indeed,
I _specifically said_ this particular trivial variation on
simple-permissive licensing, just like thousands of potential others, is
clearly OSD-compliant).  What I said was:  1.  If OSI is somehow
badgered into approving this rather pointless variation, I predict it
will be immediately consigned to the "Licenses that are redundant with
more popular licenses" (duplicative) category.  2.  The pointlessness of
this licence more than adequately explains the prevailing preceding lack
of interest.  3.  This has been a waste of time.

The latter point has now been further underlined by my needing to say
(above) what I did _not_ say -- and then to reiterate what I _had_ said.

As I said, maybe ignoring the thing _was_ the best course of action, all
along.