Re: Fwd: Chicken Dance License
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ben Finney <email@example.com> wrote:
[replying on-list again after Andrew and I implicitly agree the
discussion can be public]
Well, the best advice I can give you is: Really, please, don't do that.
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.
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.
After all obvious options considered, what is the difference between finding an obscure license that nobody knows about and writing a new one, besides my own familiarity with the license?
The ‘debian-legal’ forum is not a good place for that. We discuss
> For now, what I want is the scrutiny that any Free Software license
> in the making might be subjected to.
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.
Ah, understood and noted. Thank you for your time, and good evening!
\ “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than |
`\ it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----