- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:45:01 +0000
- To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
- Cc: "Russ Nelson" <nelson@crynwr.com>, license-review@opensource.org, www-archive@w3.org
On Dec 28, 2007 6:04 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Am I an entity now? Yes. I took the term "entity" from the OSI approved Fair License: "Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the works is notified of this instrument." - http://opensource.org/licenses/fair.php Did you not review this license? > Since when is a license an "instrument"? Again, this is a term taken from the Fair License. > What about all the other IP rights that might be embodied in a work? As far as I was able to tell from reading the OSD, only the rights that I enumerated were required to be enumerated. > Why are we wasting our time on this? I set the rationale out in my original submission message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/0073 And I'd be willing to expand upon it, but given that you've already classified this as a waste of time I'm not sure that your opinion is malleable enough to be worth the effort. This is disheartening, but perhaps it was simply hyperbole to encode a very strong professional opinion? It seems to me an impolite rhetoric. Programmers don't like licenses that seem like a waste of bytes, and since they're not lawyers it's very difficult to see why what seem like verbose licenses are required. Just one example: "I think that people really use software licenses to express intentions, and don't really read the details of the licenses. So I think that licenses should be made as simple as possible, so that they don't disagree with intentions…" - http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000360 That's the short of it. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 18:45:18 UTC