On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:56:43 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote: > Hi, Hi Miriam, nice to read you! > > A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational > Community License 1.0 [...] Why, oh why, do people go on writing new useless licenses? It seems that they cannot help but increase license proliferation... :-( [insert here the usual rant against license proliferation, which is bad, because it increases legal uncertainty with uncommon and not-well-understood licenses, it adds complexity to license compatibility and interaction analysis, and so forth...] We need more Free Software, not more licenses! [...] > > I don't think there is any obvious problem with it, but I thought it > would be better to ask here too, just in case, as there doesn't seem > to be any package in the archive using it (AFAIK). What do you think? I haven't spotted any major issue in the license text. Apart from the fact that it is the n-th non-copyleft permissive license and that whoever is considering to adopt this license, should think twice before adopting an obscure and uncommon license which could hide subtle issues which are not apparent. I strongly recommend anyone considering to adopt the ECL v1.0, to re-consider and choose a widely-used and well-understood non-copyleft license, such as: * the Expat/MIT license http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt * the 3-clause BSD license http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license * the zlib license http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html I hope this helps. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp4HsKgMk1Sb.pgp
Description: PGP signature