On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:38:35AM -0600, Nick Welch wrote: > > This is why random Joe off the street should not be writing licences. > > >From what I can gather, the license was developed through discussion on > OSI's mailing list, and in the end it was OSI who approved it. Quite > different from "random Joe off the street" whipping up some homebrew > license and slapping it on some code. The links you gave earlier don't appear to show much useful debate or input from anyone with the first clue about licence authoring. > I will be making another TinyWM release real soon now, and it will be > put into the public domain. I'm tired of license drama -- that's partly > why I started using this license. I guess the joke's on me. ;) The MIT licence (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) does pretty much what you appear to want the Fair Licence to provide -- "do what you like, just don't remove the licence". That makes the Fair Licence doubly pointless. Public domain is not going to absolve you from the licence drama, either -- in many jurisdictions, there is no concept of "the public domain", so you're in a bit of a pickle. > As far as it not being worth packaging for debian, I won't really get > involved in that debate except basically to say that it is certainly > worthy of debate. It would be useful to have it apt-gettable, but then > again.. it's 60 lines of code! :) A minimal WM might be of use, but I'm not sure if it's quite going to "add value" to Debian. But it's not as though it'd be the first package with limited appeal to enter Debian. I'll leave that judgement call to whoever is willing to maintain the package. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature