[License-discuss] [DISCUSS] PUWL v1.0 – P-EADCA Universal Waiver License

[Bruce Perens]

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 4:31 AM Balázs Hámorszky <balihb at gmail.com> wrote:

> I hereby stand by the original intent of PUWL: to maximize freedom for
> both authors and users.
>

This is fine. But how you can achieve it _and_ improve on current licenses
is less clear. A different license, rather than one widely perceived as
better, would not really be a contribution because it would increase
license proliferation and the combinatorial problem of multiple licenses on
a work and their inter-license compatibility issues.


> I respectfully disagree with the notion that only lawyers should have the
> exclusive right to work on matters that affect the developer community in
> the legal space.
>

Oh no, that's not what I was asking for. I am not a lawyer. I would not,
however, issue the release version of a license without one, for fear of it
hurting someone. This is not just talk, I have involved lawyers in the work
on Post Open.


> That said, I recognize the importance of legal clarity and will take the
> feedback into account for any future revision.
>

I acknowledge the additional difficulty.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251002/3da662b7/attachment.htm>