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
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
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
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
4 matches
Mail list logo
