Re: MTL license
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:00:09PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> BTW, what does `another unfortunate example of "license NIH"' refer to?
>
> "not invented here"; people writing their own licenses, or modifying
> them, instead of using existing, well-understood licenses. It's a cause
> of license proliferation, which makes it harder for everyone to understand
> free software licensing, and very often causes unexpected (and usually
> unintended) problems, such as those of this license. It's almost always
> better to use an existing license than to make a new one.
And if you're going to make a new one, consult debian-legal, cause we're
sufficiently paranoid. ;-)
The only case I've seen where a new license was really justified was the "I
want public domain, but not all countries allow that" license request.
There have been rather more cases where GPL + extra permission grants was
what the author really needed.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply to: