No announcement yet.

Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    For those that haven't noticed, all Phoronix news is not written very seriously... if there's a Linux event/news that's also funny, entertaining, weird, or interesting, it also sometimes gets mentioned - especially if it's going to lead into an interesting forum discussion. Note that this article is titled "A New Open-Source License..." and begins with "Some user, after having..." I certainly don't think Maximal will be overtaking the GPL anytime soon
    Michael Larabel


    • #12
      I definatly spured more comments then a lot of othere (and serious) news have


      • #13
        Sounds like a product of, or inspired by the Linux Action Show.
        "Negative in the freedom dimension" started it off.


        • #14
          Originally posted by AJenbo View Post
          I definatly spured more comments then a lot of othere (and serious) news have
          I'm guessing that you're the author of the license (or maybe you both had the same English teacher).


          • #15
            Defiantly not, I'm a bit dyslexic though.


            • #16
              Originally posted by phoronix View Post
              Phoronix: Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

              Some user, after having communicated with Richard Stallman, decided to write a new open-source license. This new open-source license is quite simple and is being called Maximal...

              Some journalist, after having run out of real news, picked a random post on the linux kernel mailing list. The resulting article is being called Crapimal...


              • #17
                Great Idea

                What a great idea to come up with a new license. I can do it too!

                DtRT License.

                This source code is released under the DtRT license. To comply with this license, you must Do the Right Thing with the source code.


                • #18
                  Catch 22

                  Well, the legal issue is a bit of a catch 22. Because if something ends up in court, it basically comes down to "But these are the terms which you have read and agreed to."

                  But now, we have the situation that for a lisence agreement to stand up in court it has to be so complicated that no one can understand the agreement that "they agreed too". But, if you make it simpler and shorter, like this lisense, people might actually read AND understand it. But, then it won't hold up in court.

                  Personally, I think that it should become an international law, that each and every single lisense agreement has a short layman's explanation at the top of what they're basically agreeing too. That way, ordinary users know what they are agreeing too, and if it does turn into a law-suit the laywers can throw the specific detailed clauses at each other to their heart's content.


                  • #19
                    This is Canada, but that probably wasn't what you meant

                    Believe it or not, terms like "open source" are *not* as clear as one would like - partly from years of abusing the term and partly because there actually *are* a bunch of corner cases, particularly when it comes to combining code which was obtained under different licenses.


                    • #20
                      Heh. Speaking of esoteric licenses, this one is by far the best I've seen: