Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?
"Sean B. Palmer" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Dec 30, 2007 10:32 AM, Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
You're not a rascal to say so: it *is* fun creating new things, and
the law can sometimes be a fun toolkit with which to play with
The problem is that, while proliferation of diverse works is generally
good, proliferation of diverse license terms for those works is mostly
bad for everyone involved. Bringing a newly-cobbled set of license
terms here for discussion usually implies those license terms are or
will be applied to a work, which is generally a bad thing.
\ "As the evening sky faded from a salmon color to a sort of |
`\ flint gray, I thought back to the salmon I caught that morning, |
_o__) and how gray he was, and how I named him Flint." -- Jack Handey |