Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
> Rick Moen wrote:
>
> >It's called 'realism'. The reason well written licences have an
> >irreducible complexity about them is that they are obliged to deal with
> >real legal issues, e.g., the way warranty disclaimers are required to be
>
>
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
> Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
> "realism" instead of "a more-restrictive license".
Mu. This request has nothing to do with what I said, and I just don't
have that time to waste.
Anyway, I already pointed out
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:41:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On 02/26/2012 09:00 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >I suspect a better approach to understandable, legally well-formed
> >license production might be to get someone who wants a very simple
> >license to write it, and only *then* get the lawy
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:08:17AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin:
> >
> > Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
> > "realism" instead of "a more-restrictive license".
>
> Mu. This request has nothing to do with what I said, and I just don't
> have
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
> If that has nothing to do with what you said, what you said must have
> nothing to do with the points to which you replied.
This comment does not strike me as either logical or constructive.
However, please do have a pleasant day.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:00:00AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Woolley:
> >
> > I suspect that licences with lots of legalese discriminate against
> > medium size enterprises.
>
> Oh, bushwah. Any layman who wants to understand in even paranoid levels
> of detail the major licences an
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:15:51AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
>
> > If that has nothing to do with what you said, what you said must have
> > nothing to do with the points to which you replied.
>
> This comment does not strike me as either logical or cons
Bruce Perens wrote:
The problem with your software, Chad, is that it's much too complicated
The software analogy is flawed in that software has to be understood by
a machine and is written in a language with very precisely defined
semantics. Legal documents are written to be interpreted by
Dear Nigel,
we discussed your detailed answer during the last days. Many thanks. We already
implemented what we had had to conclude:
> It might be even more useful for developers* to discuss a
> wider range of licenses than falls under OSI approved
> licenses much like CC covers licenses rang
On 2/26/12 5:31 PM, "David Woolley" wrote:
>
>The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not
>professional lawyers.
This is why CC is liked in the creative community. That and a broad range
of licenses to meet a variety of needs.
_
On 02/27/2012 12:57 AM, David Woolley wrote:
The software analogy is flawed in that software has to be understood
by a machine and is written in a language with very precisely defined
semantics. Legal documents are written to be interpreted by a human
and, unfortunately, legal language is not
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
> Please explain to me
No thank you. Please do have a pleasant day.
--
Cheers, "'LEGO' is the plural. The singular is 'Legum.'"
Rick Moen -- FakeAPStylebook
r...@linuxmafia.com
On 02/26/2012 09:41 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> I had to help Bob Jacobsen, an Open Source developer who chose one of
> those over-simple licenses, the Artistic License 1.0, written by Larry
> Wall the Programmer. Bob had someone who both used his program in a
> product without even attributing it
Bruce Perens wrote:
The structure of laws, courts, and contracts is indeed a machine that
executes statements of rules. That it does so /fuzzily/ and through
human rather than machine elements is not necessarily a /flaw /of the
system, in that it is invariably asked to handle unforseen problem
14 matches
Mail list logo
