Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?
On Dec 31, 2007 2:00 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Sean, please follow the Debian mailing list guidelines
> <URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>
Thanks. Francisco Poli pointed this out too, and I replied to him in
the last two paragraphs of this message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00115.html
> Copyright law, in my understanding, requires that the
> recipient must have explicit license terms, or they have
> no license by default.
Yes, but I've been told that the expression of explicit license terms
can have a very compact expression:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/0110
Here, Larry Rosen argues that you can simply refer to any OSI or CC
approved license (he didn't mention the FSF explicitly; I wonder if
FSF approved licenses can be referred to as well? :-) by name, in a
one line statement below the copyright notice.
> Instead, a better model would be to think of licenses as
> grants of largesse from a monopoly holder, under whatever
> terms they choose.
Heh, thanks, I like that.
The Eiffel Forum License v2 appears to be very close to my
requirements, as I recently noted in a previous email in this thread.
I would need to delete a single clause to, I think, make it fully
compatible with my requirements. Is it DFSG compatible in your
opinion? It doesn't seem to be widely used, sadly.
--
Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Reply to: