Re: Re:Bug #298195: ITP: tinywm -- Ridiculously tiny window manager
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:51:43 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> The links you gave earlier don't appear to show much useful debate or
> input from anyone with the first clue about licence authoring.
The internet appears to have swallowed the mailing list messages, but I
do remember reading through them in the past, and there was debate and
multiple revisions of the license before it became what is on the OSI
site.
> 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.
In the past I used the MIT license, but the only reason I used it
instead of giving to the public domain was because I had read a paper
that, IIRC, basically said that you're less protected legally by doing
so. But anymore I realize what the odds are and it seems silly to care.
If someone wants to sue me, hah, "bring it on."
There seem to be other issues regarding PD, such as what you mention,
but a quick look around reveals a number of non-trivial projects
released to the public domain. PD-ksh is the most prominent in my mind,
simply because of the name. UCLA seems to deem it safe to do so:
<http://aixpdslib.seas.ucla.edu/>. DJB also comes to mind. And it
appears that Debian has quite a few packages which are classified as
public domain.
--
Nick Welch aka mackstann | mack @ incise.org | http://incise.org
Reply to: