On Sun, Feb 26, 2012, at 03:03 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > > Defective efforts like 'Unlicense' are what happens when naive coders > > attempt to create permissive licences, with results about as sad and > > unfortunate as would be the case if typical coders were to attempt to > > practice law. > > . . . and yet, the Unlicense is lengthier than (for instance) the ISC and > MIT/X11 licenses, which are better written from a legal standpoint. > That's because the Unlicense is trying to *do* more, and not just because > it wasn't written by lawyers or with lawyers on tap to help tighten up > the language for legal purposes.
I suggest that the Unlicense should be considered for OSI approval. If it is a broken license, perhaps those with legal expertise might provide suggestions to fix it? Best, Clark _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
