KLLSD License

[Bruce Perens]

Ricardo I. Vieitez wrote:
> I didn't say the public is unwilling to accept it (I don't know that),
> but is probably unwilling to read it or to understand it.
They don't understand the short ones either.

IMO what they really need is a license that implements the required 
sharing paradigm (gift, sharing-with-rules, or something in between) and 
works well in court. Being short and easy to read is a bonus but not 
nearly so important as working well in court. Note that the JMRI project 
has switched from Artistic 1.0 to LGPL after learning the hard way.
> Indeed. It might be tedious. However, this clause is intended to be
> applied on 'less
> traumatic' way: a simple comment on the source field saying "This
> piece of software is
> based on XXXX" and then commenting when a modification took place so
> that the final
> user can identify them. On the other hand, patch files may use any
> other license (as per (2)h)
> and therefore such a warning may not be required.
>   
I don't think they'll approve it.

    Thanks

    Bruce