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

Re: Fwd: Chicken Dance License

[replying on-list again after Andrew and I implicitly agree the
discussion can be public]

On 26-Mar-2011, Andrew Harris wrote:

> As for your suggestion of using a better-tested license, I do not
> feel that any other license carries the same message as CDL. WTFPL
> comes close, but offers nothing in the way of attributive
> protection. My ultimate goal is a recognized Free Software license
> that is copyleft, and satirical of copyleft itself.

Well, the best advice I can give you is: Really, please, don't do that.

We have far too many incompatible licenses, and licenses that people
think are compatible but with problematic compatibility wrinkles.

It's far better for everyone involved if you try *very hard* to find
an existing well-known well-understood free software license that
pretty much meets your goals.

> For now, what I want is the scrutiny that any Free Software license
> in the making might be subjected to.

The ‘debian-legal’ forum is not a good place for that. We discuss
actual software packages that are either in, or are being considered
for inclusion in, the Debian operating system.

That is, we much prefer to discuss the freedom and legal issues of
software that exists, not license terms in a vacuum.

 \      “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than |
  `\  it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: