On 12/01/06, Ashley Yakeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry this is dragging on so long. It seems public domain is hard, > both in the U.S. and in certain European jurisdictions. And people want > a disclaimer. > > I did come across the MIT license, which may be close. > <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php> > Here is my non-expert attempt to adapt it, removing the condition, and > changing "Software" to "Work": > > "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > this work (the "Work"), to deal in the Work without restriction, > including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, > publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to > permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so. > > "THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR > IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL > THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR > OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, > ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER > DEALINGS IN THE WORK."
That sounds good. I'd vote to make it the default license. I think that allowing things to be sparingly attributed otherwise is a good idea. Most of the time it wouldn't matter, but there may be content which people want to make available on the site under different licenses, and I don't see any reason to prevent them from doing so, so long as which license things are under remains perfectly clear. - Cale _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
