[License-review] OSI, legal conditions outside the "four corners" of the license, and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?]

[Lawrence Rosen]

Bruce Perens wrote:
> Please see the discussion of "crayon" licenses at
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-
> December/000039.html
> 
> The point is that such things have done serious harm to developers when
> they've not behaved as expected in court. Thus, naïvely propagating one
> could be considered to be in the category of irresponsible acts that
> can damage others. In general I suggest that such things be discussed
> as a list of goals rather than an actual license prototype constructed
> by a non-legal-professional.

+1 to what Bruce Perens said. /Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: license-review-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-review-
> bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 10:53 AM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] OSI, legal conditions outside the "four
> corners" of the license, and PD/CC 0 [was Re: Can OSI specify that
> public domain is open source?]
> 
> On 01/03/2012 10:33 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > I find it dismaying that your response to me seems so hostile, given
> > all I did was suggest that the Unlicense be *considered*.
> 
> Please see the discussion of "crayon" licenses at
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-
> December/000039.html
> 
> The point is that such things have done serious harm to developers when
> they've not behaved as expected in court. Thus, naïvely propagating one
> could be considered to be in the category of irresponsible acts that
> can damage others. In general I suggest that such things be discussed
> as a list of goals rather than an actual license prototype constructed
> by a non-legal-professional.
> 
>      Thanks
> 
>      Bruce