Re: license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
Andy Tai wrote: Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to name his licenses in a grandiose fashion. Academic Free License and Open Software License. These give the impression that such licenses are official or superior in some way, as endorsed officially by the OSI. These licenses are better named (for example) Rosenlaw Academic Free License and Rosenlaw Open Software License. The The other licenses were created for specific projects. The AFL and OSL are not, so I think that it is perfectly fine to give them generic names (and yes, they are superior in some way.) OSI should encourage specific license names unless a license is a product of wide community consent. Just a suggestion. How can a license gain such consent prior to having a name, and if it already had a well-known name would it be wise to change it? The only concern I have about the names is that Free and Open seems to be switched. The OSL is based on reciprocity, which is usually associated with Free Software, and the AFL is not, which is usually associated with Open Source (especially when seen in the light of RMS's rejection of Open Source.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
I agree with Reese's response to the original post about Larry. I think that post was particularly ill-mannered. Larry's intent was entirely misunderstood by the poster. The service that Larry is providing is generous, not grandiose. He is drafting software license templates, which necessarily are not attached to specific projects. In addition, Larry is using names that are general and clear enough so that those who may benefit from the template are aided in their selection of the appropriate license template to use for adoption of their own license. Lastly, it should go without saying on this list, but I'll say so anyway; lawyers who do work in software licensing (many of whom are primarily lawyers specializing in Intellectual Property) do not come cheap, and their services are in high demand these days. Hence, it is actually an understatement to say that the services Larry is providing ought to be appreciated. Occasionally, I am taken aback to see what appears to be reflexive attacks on lawyers on this list. Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cyberspaces: Words-Not-Deeds: http://www.cyberspaces.org/webzine/ - Original Message - The other licenses were created for specific projects. The AFL and OSL are not, so I think that it is perfectly fine to give them generic names (and yes, they are superior in some way.) OSI should encourage specific license names unless a license is a product of wide community consent. Just a suggestion. How can a license gain such consent prior to having a name, and if it already had a well-known name would it be wise to change it? The only concern I have about the names is that Free and Open seems to be switched. The OSL is based on reciprocity, which is usually associated with Free Software, and the AFL is not, which is usually associated with Open Source (especially when seen in the light of RMS's rejection of Open Source.) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
Bjorn Reese scripsit: The only concern I have about the names is that Free and Open seems to be switched. The OSL is based on reciprocity, which is usually associated with Free Software, and the AFL is not, which is usually associated with Open Source (especially when seen in the light of RMS's rejection of Open Source.) Software licensed under non-reciprocal licenses is still free software. Software licensed under reciprocal licenses is still open-source software. The number of licenses where FSF and OSI disagree is very small, and the proportion of software covered by them is even smaller. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done. Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything you can put the telegram down as a forgery. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License
Common Free Software/Open Source license names are generally specific or unofficially named. BSD and MIT licenses are named (customarily) from the school or project names. GPL is commonly referred to as such but RMS/GNU always insisted the official name is GNU GPL. Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to name his licenses in a grandiose fashion. Academic Free License and Open Software License. These give the impression that such licenses are official or superior in some way, as endorsed officially by the OSI. These licenses are better named (for example) Rosenlaw Academic Free License and Rosenlaw Open Software License. The OSI should encourage specific license names unless a license is a product of wide community consent. Just a suggestion. --- Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have modified the Academic Free License to remove the word sublicense from the copyright grant. The new version, numbered as version 1.1, is now posted to www.rosenlaw.com/afl.html. It is best for open source licenses not to be sublicenseable I request the OSI board to approve that revised version. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
