And how about the software patent issue (which is a highlight of GPLv3 and Apache 2.0)
Is this rough equivalents: CC-by ~ 2BSDL, CC=by-sa ~ GPLv2? > On Apr 1, 2015, at 22:37, Tzeng, Nigel H. <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, "Rick Moen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. ([email protected]): >> >>> Or perhaps they simply wish software licenses were as easy to understand >>> and use as the creative commons ones. >> >> Yes, it's common to wish that highly technical fields (such as law) were >> simple. >> >> Very small benefit, large downside as shown by those who've gotten this >> wrong. > > Creative Commons seems successful and it does not appear that they have > ³gotten this wrong². > >>> It should be as easy as SC-BY-SA 1.0 with a clear english (or whatever) >>> description without some debatable political/social agenda behind it all >>> like with the FSF/GPL. >> >> A copyleft licence without a political/social agenda? I'll await this >> with interest. > > CC-BY-SA > > Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, widely accepted and > used. > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
