(Hopefully replying to my sent mail works and doesn't start a new thread)
I've incorporated most suggestions (commit 848faa0 in the previously linked to
GitHub repository) and attached the new draft as both plaintext and universal
diff from previous plaintext.
- conditions -> obligations
- at l
Thank you for your feedback.
On Sunday, 4 August 2019 19:49:18 CEST Lukas Atkinson wrote:
> I have two concerns about this license:
>
> 1. it seems to disallow private modification and compel disclosure.
Yes, that is intentional.
> Even if this didn't fail the desert island test, it would be im
I have two concerns about this license:
1. it seems to disallow private modification and compel disclosure. Even if
this didn't fail the desert island test, it would be impossible to comply
because there's no time frame within which a change must be published. Then
again, publication is only neces
Thanks for the suggestions. If I were to adopt them I think I can
go a bit further and shorten clause 2 to this (or do you see any issue with
removing the "as follows" part?):
2. License each change you make to this software under this license,
publish it through a freely accessible distributi
I would not use the word 'Contribute' in clause 2, but instead use the
word 'Publish'. 'Contribute' implies more than just publication, at
least in common usage in the open source world. In addition, there is
no need to specify "to the public" in the requirement of applying this
license to changes;
Hello,
due to me being unable to find a reciprocal software license I'm truly happy
with I've been working on developing my own:
https://github.com/MoritzMaxeiner/contribution-public-license/blob/master/
LICENSE.org
I would - eventually - like to submit the license for OSI approval, but
though
