I see. To me those opinions are interesting in and of themselves (especially if they're conflicting), but I take both of your points. I'll refrain from posting further updates on the LSL itself for a while and rethink my approach.
Moritz On Thursday, 8 August 2019 22:06:39 CEST Pamela Chestek wrote: > On 8/8/2019 3:57 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: License-discuss > >>> [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of > >>> Moritz Maxeiner Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:45 PM > >>> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > >>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source > >>> License > >>> If I have misunderstood the ML's purpose, I apologize. > > > > IMHO the mailing list is for discussing issues with existing OSI approved > > licenses, or other issues relevant to interpreting them. It could serve > > as a place to pre-discuss licenses to be later submitted (which is what > > you are trying to do). I'm not sure its purpose is to get you free > > advice on license drafting by lawyers (although such advice is sometimes > > provided, within reason, on mailing list discussions, but usually between > > lawyers). Maybe other lawyers on the list would like to do so, but I > > wouldn't count on it. > > > > If I were you, I'd instead do the following: > > Outline the gaps you are seeing in existing OSI approved licenses vs what > > your goals are. Explain how you'd like to fill those gaps, not via > > license language, but by discussing the concepts. See how people respond > > as to: whether there are indeed the gaps you see, and whether your goals > > could be met by an OSD-conformant license. > > > > After that, I'm afraid, you'd likely need to hire a lawyer, if you want a > > license that meets your goals, meets the OSD, and is drafted according to > > good legal standards. > > > > Other posters may differ; just my opinion. > > My opinion is different, I think everything you have done and asked for > is appropriate for this list. However McCoy is right that you're only > getting the largesse of people who have the time and inclination to > respond, each with their own opinion, and you will often get conflicting > views. So I'm not sure it's the best way to go about drafting a license. > But it has been a good demonstration of how difficult it is to write a > good, solid license. > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > 919-800-8033 > pam...@chesteklegal.com > www.chesteklegal.com > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc > e.org _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
