On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:10:52AM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: > On 8/17/2013 9:38 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Speaking just for myself, it is difficult for me to imagine any > license chooser or license explanation site that I wouldn't think was > more problematic than useful. Linking to a *wide* variety of license > choosers or summary sites with a very strong caveat emptor statement > might be okay. > > Because you are so intimately familiar with the licenses and know every > feature > and blemish, so you seek the perfect when maybe we should only aspire to the > better-than-nothing. Maybe not; I read your slides and take your point that > "nothing" isn't really all that scary.
I really believe it is best for anyone to try to read the actual license in question. A summary can be a reasonable starting point, but it especially bothers me if it is distorted (as I think it may almost always be) by political or cultural bias. Also, if a license is really too difficult to understand, that is itself useful (for the would-be licensor and for the license steward) to find out. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss