Janet M. Swisher wrote: > Looks good to me :-)
:-) > I'm in favor of making things more open, as long as the license as a > whole is non-viral. I like to avoid the word "viral". It has negative connotations, which gets people arguing forever about whether it's accurate. I prefer neutral terms like "reciprocal". > The advantage of the dual-license scheme is that you can use the CC-BY > license if you want to avoid possible GPL "infection". I am a fan of dual licensing. It allows you to be flexible, without droping down to a license with zero restrictions (BSD, MIT). I see more FOSS projects adopting dual licenses. Perl is the traditional example, but nw there is OOo and Mozilla as well. Each one has their own idea of what makes a good license (Perl likes Artistic, Moz likes MPL, Sun likes SISSL). But they don't want to become isolated. So they adopt a dual GPL / xyz license system. Well, that's my take anyways. > Beyond that, I defer to anyone (such as the debian-legal folks) who's > spent a bunch of time thinking about these issues, which I have not. Ok. The Debian-legal team has been invaluable. :-) Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org |
