Re: Fwd: Chicken Dance License
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
[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.
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?
> 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.
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 |
_o__) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=YdyJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: