Mike Linksvayer schrieb:
> On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:54 +0200, Joachim Durchholz
wrote:
>> Software is special, but it's not so special that
it warrants
>> such a massive exception as having just a single
license that uses
>> different language, different legal concepts, etc.
>
> Path dependency. A priori software may not be that
special.
> Historically, it is.
That explains the choice, but it doesn't justify it (beyond
the usual
"the GPL already does a good deal of what we want, and
we don't have
something better" - which I'd agree with).
> Source-unavailable freeware, source-available payware,
shareware, etc.
> have been around for decades. That no commonly applied
licenses for
> these have developed is a huge warning sign.
Let me retort with "path dependency" to this one
For FOSS, RMS has been massively promoting and pushing the
issue. (And
even there, there's a multitude of licenses.)
For non-FOSS, no evangelization has helped shape a standard
license.
Probably because it's less controversial.
> Please ignore this sign and develop and evangelize such
licenses.
OK
> When you've achieved massive adoption we could talk
about a CC
> wrapper for your licenses like we've done with the GPL.
But I
> recommend first discussing with people who have thought
about these
> issues deeply. Join http://www.crynwr.com/fsb/
I'm not ready to invest a lifetime into this.
However, I'm willing to look up a summary of previous
discussions on the
issue and report. No need to reiterate stale arguments after
all!
Is there a URL with such a beast? Reading through the
archives of a
mailing list that discusses many other topics is probably
too much time
for me.
Regards,
Jo
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|
