[License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
chris at metatrontech.com
Tue Feb 28 11:35:51 UTC 2012
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> On 02/26/2012 02:31 PM, David Woolley wrote:
>> The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not
>> professional lawyers.
> This is always in my thoughts when considering any Open Source license.
> We can fail these people in two ways:
> 1. Provide them with a license that they might not understand.
> 2. Provide them with a license that won't hold up in court.
> The second damages them more. The first can be solved with explanation
> separate from the license.
If the first can be solved with an explanation separate from the
license, why not use that instead?
Of course we don't use that instead because the explanation is not the
same as the license. I also wonder whether in court a defendant
could successfully argue that the explanation is itself a license as
well and therefore when they disagree, the most permissive
interpretation of either wins?
I think it's important to keep licenses short, understandable in plain
English (outside of formulaic warranty disclaimers), and to the point.
Sure there will be some abuse in some corners, but the alternative is
to write increasingly long, complex, and unintelligible licenses whose
main virtue is giving lawyers something to argue about what exactly
they mean in court.......
More information about the License-discuss