[linux-elitists] Fwd: RFC: Freecell Solver Licence "Change"

Shlomi Fish shlomif at iglu.org.il
Thu Mar 19 02:30:51 PDT 2009


On Thursday 19 March 2009 10:56:43 Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Shlomi Fish (shlomif at iglu.org.il):
> > Rick, this email has been inspired by what you said about using the PD
> > for source code, and links to your page. Rick and everybody else - any
> > comments?
>
> Informed people of goodwill differ over whether particular PD
> declarations (say, for example, Creative Commons's CC0) actually
> achieve the intended legal effect without ambiguity -- in _some_
> legal jurisdictions, at least.  The best information I've heard
> is that such attempts are legal NOOPs in the UK.  (I see that an article
> you link to says the concept of public domain is "not recognised" in
> France or Germany -- whatever that means.)
>
> Tom "spot" Callaway of Red Hat told me recently that Red Hat Legal
> believes at least one PD declaration, that of Dan Bernstein in Dec.
> 2007, to be reliable in some way.  He promised to follow up with me on
> that, but hasn't yet.  I'm very curious to hear what they have to say.
>
> Anyhow, among the points my (referenced) page makes in passing is that
> a simple one-line permissive licence avoids ambiguity entirely, a
> two line licence permits warranty disclaimer, and three lines permits
> using a standard, OSI-certified licence:  the Fair License.
>
> I personally think software under clear, definite PD declarations is
> perfectly safe to use, but that there's room to wonder exactly how
> judges in particular jurisdictions are likely to implement the grantor's
> intent (if at all).
>
> One thing I like about Creative Commons's CC0 is that it hedges bets on
> the problem by providing that _if_ a jurisdiction holds that the main
> declaration is invalid (fails to nullify the copyright's existence and
> hence its property of being ownable), then a separate permissive grant
> applies, instead.
>

OK, thanks for the clarification.

> > As a result I now think I should "convert" the licensing terms of new
> > Freecell Solver releases to the MIT/X11 Licence:
>
> A perfectly fine, standard permissive licence.  If it's still too
> complex for you or others (/me shakes his head in disbelief), please
> consider the three-line Fair License.

If you mean the:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/fair.php

then while I have no problem in understanding the X11L, I don't really 
understand the language of "The Fair Licence" despite the fact that it is much 
shorter. So I think I'll stick with the MIT/X11L which has been the standard 
licence for all of my new code in recent years.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Parody on "The Fountainhead" - http://xrl.us/bjria

God gave us two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we
read.



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list