On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml(a)gondwanaland.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Luis Villa <luis(a)tieguy.org>
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Richard Fontana
> <fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>> On 09/22/2012 03:34 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>>> Just curious if anyone has thought about, looked at, or drafted a
>>> permissive license based on the structure, organization, and
>>> terminology of copyleft.next.
>>
>> In fact I have thought about it (but didn't go beyond the 'thought'
>> stage), not too after I had already started the project. Once a
>> certain level of simplification of structure was achieved I realized
>> it wouldn't be difficult to achieve this. Whether it is worth doing is
>> an interesting idea to ponder.
>
> If nothing else, it would be an interesting drafting exercise and
> might point out structural issues.
I'd love to see it. As I've carped elsewhere, the state of the art of
permissive licenses is pretty poor.
> (And I do think, if I could snap my fingers and change all licenses at
> once, having parallel licenses akin to CC-BY/CC-SA/CC-ND for
> Apache/MPL/EPL/GPL/AGPL would be a huge win for the world.)
ND really?
I knew I should have clarified that. Only included it to point out
that a common framework does not prevent a rich/complex spectrum of
permissiveness (akin to the finer shades between MPL/LGPL/GPL/AGPL),
not to advocate that the free software world should have a specific NC
or ND equivalent.
Luis