On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Chris Travers wrote:
> I would add that the license needs to be as short as
possible.
> Clarity is not always found in length. (Quite frankly
it is unclear
> to me whether the AFL requires source code
redistribution in verbatim
> copying relating to a collective work, as this would
involve someone
> sublicensing the original work to downstream
licensees.)
If a license replaces just BSDL (or just MIT, etc), then it
should be
pretty darned short. If it were modular to the point that it
replaced
most of the permissive licenses, I think it could be
significantly longer.
To address people who would be unhappy with the length,
having a "plain
English" description (a la Creative Commons) would be
fairly effective.
"Efficient" is critical. "Short" may or
may not be, though some people
might insist on it.
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Donovan Hawkins, PhD "The study of
physics will always be
Software Engineer safer than biology,
for while the
hawkins cephira.com hazards of physics drop
off as 1/r^2,
http://www.cephira.com
biological ones grow exponentially."
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
|