Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Ben Finney
Felyza Wishbringer writes: > Would this be better wording? I don't have a lot of interest in constructing new license texts, since I much prefer that all software distributors avoid unnecessary license proliferation. Please, instead of constructing new licenses, use an existing widely-used well

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 07:02:53PM -0400, Felyza Wishbringer a écrit : > Would this be better wording? > > "2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it" Dear Felyza, I think that unfortunately, there is no possiblity to have a license that is short and fun / satyrical / provocative / …, and a

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Felyza Wishbringer
Would this be better wording? "2. Nobody is liable for what .. you do with it" > The WTFPL goes beyond disclaimer to place liability on the licensee. > That's an unusual step, and I'm not convinced that it preserves the > recipient's freedom. -- -Felyza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Ben Finney
Felyza Wishbringer writes: > My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same. The significant difference is that the GPL does not place liability anywhere; it only disclaims liability for the licensor. The same goes for all other widely-used free software licenses. The WTFPL go

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Ricardo Mones
Hi Sam, On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:59:23 +0200 Sam Hocevar wrote: > > Regardless of any consideration about the license spirit, I read the > > copyright notice (Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar ) as > > applying to the license text, not to the licensed work. > > > > See for instance > > http://pac

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:17:13 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote: > My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same. I am not convinced... > > From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and > anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to >

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Felyza Wishbringer
My reading and understanding is that they are basically the same. >From the GPLv2, it states that the copyright holder (author) and anyone who modifies or redistributes the code cannot be held liable to you for damages. >From the proposed WTFPLv3, it states You are solely liable for 'what you do

Re: License check for a new(ly modified) license..

2011-09-27 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:27:11 -0400 Felyza Wishbringer wrote: [...] > My proposed WTFPLv3 (2011) > http://gamingtools.com/WTFPLv3.txt > Which changed name of the license and copyright. and add 2 > terms&conditions statements > Updated from earlier today... a change to T&C 1, which now states: You >