License Committee Report for June 2010

[Joel Rees]

Is just replying appropriate here?

On 平成 22/06/01, at 13:24, Russ Nelson wrote:

> --
>
> Title: Nameless license
> Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:1005:201004
> License: In the submission
> Comments: None
> Recommend: Prompt license-review to discuss this proposed license.

I would definitely like to see some discussion. Specifically,

(1) Can we template a license and allow room for a non-binding  
section to expose a bit more of the authors' intent in extending the  
license?

Maybe I should rename the "explanations" section to "comments"?

(2) I think it's necessary to formally acknowledge the inclusion of  
public domain code and formally assert a lack of copyright claim on  
the public domain portions. I'm sure I can word my comments more  
precisely and concisely, but the claims exclusion clause in the  
license proper is the best I can think of at this moment.

(3) I can't afford a lawyer to help me, and I apologize for  
submitting it without having a lawyer check it first.

>   Prompt submittor to name the license.

In the words of the famous geek, "erk".

Uhm, I suppose, since my use of public-domain code in my BIF-C  
project is the reason this license exists, I could call it the "BIF-C  
license." Otherwise, it could be called something like a public  
domain excluding copyright claim license -- "PDECCL" , but that would  
invite misinterpretation.

Joel Rees
(waiting for a 3+GHz ARM processor to come out,
to test Steve's willingness to switch again.)

(PS: Sorry about forgetting to reply list and pumping more mail  
directly into your mailbox, there, Russ.)