Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (nigel.tz...@jhuapl.edu): > On 3/31/15, 3:24 PM, "Rick Moen" <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: > > >Very small benefit, large downside as shown by those who've gotten this > >wrong. > > Creative Commons seems successful and it does not appear that they have > ³gotten this wrong².
I should hasten to say that you have a very good point that the Creative Commons approach has merit, and I wrote my comment far too hastily. You're right; it would be a good thing if someone skilled in the art were to attempt that. Short summaries of existing licences would be a fine start, though I could swear that there have been a few. It should be remembered that the CC 'human-readable' summaries are not the operative texts, though. (Just to point out: I didn't say that getting it wrong _must_ follow the attmept at hyper-simplicity, merely that it happens often enough to be a warning.) > >> It should be as easy as SC-BY-SA 1.0 with a clear english (or whatever) > >> description without some debatable political/social agenda behind it all > >> like with the FSF/GPL. > > > >A copyleft licence without a political/social agenda? I'll await this > >with interest. > > CC-BY-SA > > Sufficiently apolitical for me without manifestos, widely accepted and > used. Fair enough. I honestly wish people wouldn't get hung up on the manifestos, as they are NOOPs in the functioning of the legal instruments. I tend to disregard them. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss