[Fwd: Re: For Approval: The Azure License]

[Luis Villa]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Kenneth
Ballenegger<kenneth at ballenegger.com> wrote:
> Luis, I did explain the motive and rationale behind the license in the
> initial post to the mailing list.

My apologies, it appears that the initial post was marked spam by my
filters. They've been marking OSI mails as spam a lot lately; maybe
they know something I don't ;)

> I agree with you that CC-BY is something similar to what I'm trying to do --
> but CC-BY doesn't work for software.

Yes, hence the 'tongue-in-cheek' comment. That said, you might be
better off starting from that (including both the human readable and
lawyer-readable versions) and adapting it to software than starting
from scratch yet again.

> Also, just a note: I will be using this license for my own projects, but I
> will also release the license for anybody to use if it meets their needs.

Which is proliferation, which is a bad thing. As I noted, even if your
license really is more clear than other licenses (which I doubt, since
all licenses are inherently hard to read) what you're really doing is
forcing people to read and comprehend Yet Another License, which is
inherently a muddling and confusing activity.

Luis