On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 21:46:21 +1100, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote: > > - My user is concerned that a large number of having a large number of > > individual licenses even though textually identical modulo author, > > date, etc would mean a big hassle getting their lawyers and their > > user's lawyers to sign off on each and every license > > Why do their lawyers all need to sign off individually for BSD > licenses (which if memory serves all platform libraries have to be > licensed under, or some variant thereof)? At most it just means they > need to lump them all into one big text file somewhere saying which > libraries they used... (then again, IANAL, and don't charge by the > hour to consider these complex technical questions :p).
I find the whole thing baffling myself. I'd thought this would be the sensible thing to do, but I guess when it comes to these licensing things it's not the actual pain that counts, but the perceived potential pain. Know what I mean? It's similar to the "won't touch with a 10ft pole" attitude to the GPL that some entities may take. It's basically a precautionary "la la la; I can't hear you" or a conservative stance which consists of "I don't understand this stuff, so I'm going to do the thing that seems safest to me", which may or may not be a reasonable reaction... > Well, it would need copyright attribution/agreement of everyone that's > ever committed code to any library/application to the Platform (which > is why so many large projects want it) to re-license them AFAIK, which > may be difficult. I could just say it'd be unrealistic. Just trying to be thorough. -- Eric Kow <http://erickow.com>
pgpJtBqlfeVqc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
