Re: YAL (Yet another license)

[John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>]

Paul Serice writes:
> Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the Crafty developer forcing
> the name.  I'm wondering if you think it would be o.k. for him to force
> the name of only the executable.  It would "just require[] a particular
> name for one file, not the package" (to quote you out of context :-).

Let me see if I can wiggle out of this... :)

YAL requires that the file be named LEGAL, but does not forbid other names.
I could link other names to LEGAL, or distribute copies of LEGAL under
other names.  I just have make sure that a file named LEGAL with the
specified contents is present in a YAL source tree.  LEGAL need only appear
under that name in a YAL source tree and in /usr/doc/<package>, places
where it can't cause collisions or other inconveniences.

The crafty license, on the other hand, would forbid me to use any name but
crafty.clone.  This is much more restrictive and since the file is an
executable it is potentially much more inconvenient.
-- 
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org		   Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill         Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin         Do not send email advertisements to this address.