Is distribution of the *link* to the license sufficient compliance with this requirement?
/Larry (from my tablet and brief) Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: >On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Karl Fogel wrote: >>> Many coders expect to find plaintext license terms in a LICENSE or >>> COPYING file, directly in the source tree. >> >> I'd count that as another reason *not* to provide plain text license files. >> I think it would be FAR more useful to have a simple license statement in >> the source tree of each program that points to the OFFICIAL version of that >> license on the OSI website. This also avoids the duplication of text -- with >> potential transcription or legal errors -- in many source code trees, and >> completely avoids the need to actually read the licenses if one trusts OSI. >> >> Doesn't CC do that, in a way, with their license logos? > >More specifically, CC does it with the requirement in the license that >attribution notices link to the canonical text. Many OSS software >licenses, unfortunately, require distribution of the actual text of >the license. > >Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
