Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 09:00:09PM -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote: >> BTW, what does `another unfortunate example of "license NIH"' refer to? > > "not invented here"; people writing their own licenses, or modifying > them, instead of using existing, well-understood licenses. It's a cause > of license proliferation, which makes it harder for everyone to understand > free software licensing, and very often causes unexpected (and usually > unintended) problems, such as those of this license. It's almost always > better to use an existing license than to make a new one.
And if you're going to make a new one, consult debian-legal, cause we're sufficiently paranoid. ;-) The only case I've seen where a new license was really justified was the "I want public domain, but not all countries allow that" license request. There have been rather more cases where GPL + extra permission grants was what the author really needed. -- This space intentionally left blank.
