On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:43 AM, David Woolley <[email protected]> wrote: > > This sounds like a recipe for licence proliferation.
It definitely is, but new licenses aren't always a problem, particularly in cases where a judge's inability to understand the language renders the license effectively invalid. Just for fun, I started from the BSD 3-Clause and re-worked it to only use the words in the Oxford 3000 word list (plus the word "copyright", since that seemed unavoidable). This is almost certainly not a usable license from a legal perspective, due to the amount of synonyms and circumlocution I had to employ (on the other hand, just because a word has a specific legal meaning in the U.S., that doesn't mean it will in other countries). The text of the license is on GitHub: https://github.com/funnelfiasco/permissive3000 The commit history contains most of the reasoning for the various changes I made, but I've also discussed some of it on a blog post: http://blog.funnelfiasco.com/?p=1638 I have no intention of submitting this for OSI approval (unless it turns out that this is really awesome), but it seems like a good focal point for discussion about making licenses as readable and portable (from a language standpoint if not a jursidiction standpoint). I welcome constructive feedback as a public learning experience, but if this is too far off-topic for this list, I'd be happy to move the discussion to another venue. Thanks, BC -- Ben Cotton _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
