KLLSD License

[Ricardo I. Vieitez]

Oh, for some reason I didn't answer to the list (but mailed Bruce).
Anyway, here goes my message.

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> 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.
You have a point here. A simple and plain text such as the BSD/MIT licenses
have this, and they worked well on courts. The ideal license should comply
both in being understandable and in its ability to be enforced. Maybe
an in-between
situation is such of CC licenses, that despite being too extensive and complex
have their non-legal résumé.
>>
>> 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.
Well, right. Would you please submit a link to that license of Apple
so that I can see the issue. BTW, would you say
the chances increase if that clause is simplified to "d- Modified
works must say clearly that they are a modified version.", omitting
the rest of the text?
>
>   Thanks
>
>   Bruce
>

Thanks in advance,

Ricardo