The problem/issue is that it is difficult to address licenses without, imo at least, the "politics" of said license leaking in.
It is difficult to write things without personal biases filtering out, something which happens with me fwiw. On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bk...@ebb.org> wrote: >> Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: >>> Richard Fontana pointed out in his OSCON talk that license choosers >>> generally make political statements about views of licenses. He used >>> the GitHub chooser as an example, which subtly pushes people toward >>> permissive licenses. > > John Cowan wrote at 09:49 (EDT): >> Surely he jests. Choosealicense.com *blatantly* pushes people toward >> the MIT license. > > :) Fontana has been known to jest. > > Still, my view is that it's tough to compliance about this; the > choosealicense.com site says "patches welcome", so we should offer them. > >> I don't believe, however, that my chooser <http://ccil.org/~cowan/floss> >> has any such biases. > > John, have you considered offering text from your license chooser as a > patch to chosealicense.com? I think it'd be good to test their claim > that they want contribution, and you seem the right person to do it, > since you've worked on this problem before. > > -- > -- bkuhn > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
