- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:56:36 +0000
- To: "Russ Nelson" <nelson@crynwr.com>
- Cc: license-review@opensource.org, www-archive@w3.org
On Dec 20, 2007 3:43 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote: > Write the license you want to write. Given all this good advice, I hereby modify my submission to: Copyright <Year>, <Entity Name and Optional Metadata> Entities may copy, modify, distribute, sell, and use this work, without warranty, provided this entire instrument is preserved as a notice. The normative version of which is at: http://inamidst.com/stuff/aepl/license Last-Modified: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:10:06 GMT SHA1: 3ec2f90a88af01c232648656cbba4ce21783d3cd And the previous version of which is persistently archived here: http://inamidst.com/stuff/aepl/draft-license-01 I'm also considering suggested name changes. The 30 days of discussion is, I presume, counted from the initial submission only. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Better for you to have a license that makes you happy rather than > one that makes us happy and yet gets you no users. Absolutely, though this license's interested users value OSI approval. Sites such as the Python Package Index and SourceForge Trove, for example, only enumerate OSI approved licenses to select, I've been told. Since I'm not a lawyer, I presume that users will appreciate any available stringent license review, especially given that testing a license in the judicial system is hardly possible for a new license. My submission has generated a surprising amount of positive feedback in private, so I think I've hit the nail on the head at least in spirit! -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 14:56:55 UTC