Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?
On Dec 30, 2007 10:32 AM, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> My usual recommendation for these needs is the Expat license
Which is indeed too long, even though James Clark is crazy-cool.
> Writing new licenses is in general strongly recommended against
Yeah, I understand. But it proved to be a pretty good way to start a
conversation, and I was interested to see what would happen. It was
also exceptionally fun, though perhaps I'm a rascal to say so.
> b) license proliferation is bad
Whilst that's very true, and I would prefer there to be far fewer
licenses than there are currently, my argument was that there simply
wasn't a license I could find that meets my (rather humble, I think!)
requirements. There's no harm in making new licenses if they meet new
and reasonable needs.
Wasn't GPLv3 conceived because of new demands with respect to software
patents and tivoisation and the like? Why were so few other licenses
revised in light of the same new demands, I wonder?
(This question is prolly getting out of scope; sorry.)
> I cannot comment on the AFL 3.0, since I haven't analyzed it.
Okay, no problem. It would be nice to see if there is a consensus,
either existing or newly emerging, about it though.
> I think the simple license that you called "GNU All Permissive
> License" satisfies your requirements.
> If the 2-line-length constraint is so important, well, who said that
> those two lines have to be 70 column long?
Nobody; but Guido van Rossum says they must be 79 columns :-)
Really the difference comes down to the following:
* * *
Copyright 2007, Sean B. Palmer, inamidst.com
Released to the public under the Example License.
* * *
Compared to:
* * *
Copyright 2007, Sean B. Palmer, inamidst.com
Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are
permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and
this notice are preserved.
* * *
To most people these probably look identical, but the former is by far
the more preferable to me. It's my idiosyncrasy, and I'm gonna stick
by it! :-)
I'm also a bit concerned (my requirements have a habit of evolving)
about the warranty clause, or rather of the GNU APL's lack of one. I
could take the very short warranty disclaimer from the end of the OSI
approved Fair License, and tack it on as follows:
* * *
Copyright 2007, Sean B. Palmer, inamidst.com
Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are
permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and
this notice are preserved. Disclaimer: this work is without warranty.
* * *
But then we're possibly starting to get into novel license territory,
which as we've already seen is somewhat bad. Moreover the opinion of
whether you ought to have a warranty disclaimer seems to vary with who
you ask. I'm not sure how practically necessary it is.
Anyway, thanks for your opinion that the GNU APL is DFSG compatible!
--
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Reply to: