Consider to put into the license an "international private law clause" on the type "the law apliable to this obligations (the license) is the one of ....(and you indicate the nation which legal system has the structure of public domain you prefer). I don't like this, 'couse is a way to impose other rules and cultural concept to foregins, and probabily it is dfsg non free, but for the purpose you talk, maybe you find it useful. IMHO,IANAL Tom --- Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: Harald Geyer wrote: >Joachim Breitner wrote: >>Harald Geyer wrote: >>>Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like >>>to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\ >> >>I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially >>says the same stuff as yours, is the shortest of all on opensource.org, >>and is well known and widely used. > > Yes, I know the MIT-License and it is the option if there are any > objections against my draft. > > However there are some things I dislike about the MIT-License: > * You are forced to include the original copyright notice, in > whatever "substantial portions of the Software" are. True. > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.) You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license used on the software. It can simply be a note about the original. This requirement is primarily for reasons of credit, I believe. > * It is an enumerate style license, which means that > - you might forget something > - it is water on the mills of those who write wired legal text saying > you might do everything, but afterwards try to define what everything is. > - it is based upon US copyright law and the rights enumerated therein, > but there might exist other juristdictions with additional/other rights. > > Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told, > that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about > my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the > same rights *as* public domain. First of all, I believe your impression of the MIT license is not accurate. Nevertheless, if you really want to release public domain software, while still dealing with strange jurisdictions in which such a thing does not exist, then I suggest reading http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/05/msg00235.html , in particular the part starting with "I refuse to assert copyright in this modification.". - Josh Triplett _____________________________________________________________ <---o0o---> Aconsegueix el_teu_email@teatre.com gratuÏtament a http://teatre.com :-))-:
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature