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

Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:39:26 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:

> I can re-release under the BOLA license with a WTFPL exemption:
> ‘To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain, but
> if you do not agree this is possible, then just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.’

I've already suggested more widely used, well known & analyzed licenses.

If you are convinced that a public-domain-like situation is actually
desirable, then, AFAIK, the best way to achieve it is the Creative
Commons public domain dedication [1], or possibly CC0 [2].

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
[2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

> This said, license proliferation is not Buena Onda…

License proliferation is indeed a bad phenomenon, that's why I would
*not* recommend a license like BOLA: I personally think that it's
legally unclear, and almost completely unknown.

 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpRYIxPBPA9o.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: