The license isn't really "standing up" when you have to file a writ of
certiorari after a judge throws his hands up at the license text and pronounces
it to be tantamount to a dedication to the public domain. That was no easy
appeal to win, and the Open Source developer was seriously damaged by the cost
and the 5-year process. It cost me a good deal of time and work too.
A license that stands up would, I hope, require much less time to dispute and
would be parsed as intended by the court.
So, what the Artistic License 1.0 made much more difficult for the poor Open
Source developer is exactly what I'd like to fix. And yet the Artistic 1.0 is
not the one I thought of first upon seeing this discussion in progress. We have
much worse.
Thanks
Bruce
John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bruce Perens scripsit:
>
>And yet the Artistic License 1.0, which is riddled with ambiguities and
>a prototypical crayon license, is one of the few that has been tested
>in court -- and stood up.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
