Re: Copyleft variation of MIT license
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> Instead, I admire the MIT license for its short length and
> comprehensibility, and wish to make a copyleft variation of the MIT
> license[2].
I'm not even going to bother reading and reviewing the following
license for the following reasons:
1) Contributing to license proliferation is bad.
You propose to create another copyleft license which is incompatible
with many other widely use copyleft licenses. I canot in good faith
even begin to suggest that you continue and have other people use your
license.
2) Deciding whether or not to use a license based on its brevity is
not useful at all.
Liceses that do very simple things, like Expat, can be short because
they give everything away. Indeed, PD grants/licenses would be even
shorter. Licenses that do complex things, like turning copyright law
on its head, have to be long in order to deal properly with the corner
cases so the freedom of users is not abridged. Brevity is a virtue,
but brevity at the expense of clarity and completeness is
counterproductive.
3) Lack of desire to comprehend all of the tenets of a relatively
clearly written license (GNU GPL) does not make the license useless,
nor does it bode well for writing Free Software licenses in general.
If there are specific issues with the GPL, or the need for a general
overview, contact competent legal representation and have them explain
the license to you.
Don Armstrong
--
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: