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! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpRYIxPBPA9o.pgp
Description: PGP signature