RE: Re: Æsthetic Permissive License - For Approval

[Russ Nelson]

Lawrence Rosen writes:
 > Sean Palmer submitted this complete license:
 > > Copyright <Year>, <Entity Name and Optional Metadata>
 > > 
 > > Entities may copy, modify, distribute, sell, and use this work, without
 > > warranty, provided this entire instrument is preserved as a notice.
 > 
 > Does the phrase "without warranty" apply to the "entities" or to the
 > licensor? Is it an effective warranty disclaimer? Am I an entity now?

I think he means it to refer to the verbs, not the nouns.

 > Since when is a license an "instrument"? Where must it be preserved?

When you play a pitch with it?   Preserved == kept with the
distribution.

 > What about all the other IP rights that might be embodied in a work? 

If you have the right to sell, then the licensor is giving up all
patent rights.  If they're giving it to people, they're giving up
trade secret rights.  The recipient is not getting a trademark license
since it's not mentioned.

 > A license can be so simple as to be worthless. It is like a 3-line software
 > program that successfully prints "HELLO" (my first program, oh so many years
 > ago!), but that serves absolutely no useful commercial purpose. Why are we
 > wasting our time on this?

I agree with you.  This license is not an improvement on the BSD
license.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | Software that needs
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | documentation is software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | that needs repair.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          |