Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com): > Any layman who wants to understand why this doesn't work needs only to > pick up any of Derrida's books at the corner used book store. Anyone who cannot distinguish between the accessibility of Larry Rosen's extremely lucid work and Jacques Derrida's ridiculously obscure text has much bigger problems. However, as a reminder, it is _not_ necessary to read a comprehensive book on open source licensing to have a reasonable knowledge of how a major open source licence, particularly a simple permissive one, is constructed and why. > All human communication is subject to areas of ambiguity and > irreducible complexity. The more you try to specify, the more you > will run into conflicts and omissions. Thank you, Captain Edge Case. > And as much as folks like to pretend that legalese is a programming > language, it's not. I hope you're addressing this bit of packaged Polonius-grade wisdom to someone else, as I certainly have had no such illusion. How many times have I said on this mailing list that the law (and judges) are not Turing machines? Let's find out. ~ $ grep 'Turing machine' Mail/license-discuss law is a Turing machine. The difference is that judges are not Turing machines. ObReminder: The law is not a Turing machine: Judges interpret terms anything that looks like a Turing machine against a variety of inputs. Turing machine, with the result that they try to hurl goofy licences As has been said in this space before, judges are not Turing machines, like the fact that a Turing machine cannot be set up to decide what is a $ Eight times, if you include this posting. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Rick Moen wrote: > Oh, bushwah. Any layman who wants to understand in even paranoid levels > of detail the major licences and has two hours to spare can pull down > the PDF of Larry Rosen's book free of charge, among other methods of > arriving at that understanding. > > And any of them who cannot comprehend MIT/X after two hours even without > Larry's book probably should rethink running a business. > Any layman who wants to understand why this doesn't work needs only to pick up any of Derrida's books at the corner used book store. All human communication is subject to areas of ambiguity and irreducible complexity. The more you try to specify, the more you will run into conflicts and omissions. And as much as folks like to pretend that legalese is a programming language, it's not. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: > On 02/26/2012 02:31 PM, David Woolley wrote: >> >> >> The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not >> professional lawyers. > > This is always in my thoughts when considering any Open Source license. > > We can fail these people in two ways: > 1. Provide them with a license that they might not understand. > 2. Provide them with a license that won't hold up in court. > > The second damages them more. The first can be solved with explanation > separate from the license. If the first can be solved with an explanation separate from the license, why not use that instead? Of course we don't use that instead because the explanation is not the same as the license. I also wonder whether in court a defendant could successfully argue that the explanation is itself a license as well and therefore when they disagree, the most permissive interpretation of either wins? I think it's important to keep licenses short, understandable in plain English (outside of formulaic warranty disclaimers), and to the point. Sure there will be some abuse in some corners, but the alternative is to write increasingly long, complex, and unintelligible licenses whose main virtue is giving lawyers something to argue about what exactly they mean in court... Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
