> On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:13 PM, Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > > With regard to jurisdiction: do we have evidence that existing licenses can't > be enforced as per the intent of the license stewards in certain juridictions > because they use terms differently, or there are assumed defaults in that > jurisdiction that simply don't exist? If so, wouldn't it be more aligned > with reducing license proliferation to work with existing license stewards to > iterate existing licenses to adjust their language (or add > jurisdiction-specific terms) to address these exceptions? >
I would agree that this effort should be done, but only provided that there is evidence that things are currently broken. I don't think it's quite fair "forcing" people into busy work to fix something that isn't broken. I wonder if the proposal is a problem looking for a solution, or a solution looking for a problem. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
