[repost] [j at uriah.heep.sax.de: For Approval: The beer-ware license]

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Rick Moen wrote:

> I don't want to seem like I don't appreciate the favour you're
> trying to do your friend, but did it occur to you that it might have
> been ignored for lack of interest, and that there might have been a
> good reason for that lack of interest?

I would at least consider it polite to get an answer then, instead of
being ignored.

> Like all such simple-permissive licences, this is obviously
> OSD-compliant, as are (no doubt) thousands of potential variations
> on this theme.

However, some people insist on blessed licenses even though it's
"obviously" compliant in your opinion.

> Most such variations, like Kamp's, will end up lacking the obviously
> needed warranty disclaimer ...

This is not obvios at all to me.  What is it needed for?  Who needs
it?

> Me, I'd recommend that your friend Poul-Henning use AFL 3.0 or the
> MIT License, and get over that line-count fetish of his.

If he wanted to have that, he could have had it straight from the
beginning (and probably would have chosen to use the BSD license
instead since he's more familiar with it).  He stated his reasoning
for not chosing it, and I eventually had to agree with him.  The
version number 3.0 alone speaks for why one would not have such a
license (my opinion, yours obviously will differ).

The more lines, the higher will be the salary for the lawyer.  I don't
see who else would profit from a complicated license when a simple one
will do.

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)