[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:20:27 +0000 Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> On Jan 1, 2008 10:39 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > (typo: my name is Francesco, not Francisco...)
> Argh, sorry. Too much Hamlet!

Heh!  ;-)

> I've expanded the article this morning, and corrected the typo.

I haven't had the time to fully re-read it, but I noticed something: the
document is released under the terms of CC-by-nd-v2.0, which is utterly
I wonder why you want to be so permissive with your programs, while you
decide to be so restrictive with this document...  :-(

I always recommend against any Creative Commons license.
v1.0, v2.0 and v2.5 licenses fail to meet the DFSG:
My opinion is that v3.0 licenses also fail to meet the DFSG:
On the other hand, other people (including the FTP masters) seem to
disagree with me and think that CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0 meet the
DFSG...  :-(


> > Secondly, I think that the license text says "the above copyright
> > notice" just because it is designed to be included verbatim in
> > each file.
> People don't include it verbatim in each file, though. James Clark
> doesn't do that in Expat, for example!
> "See the file copying.txt for copying permission."
> - e.g. expat/xmlparse/xmlparse.c

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that...

 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpXLBQYKnqHK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: