Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

[bridgman]

If you want a relatively simple license that keeps your code out of big companies, there's always the JSON license.

http://www.json.org/license.html

Unfortunately the license terms had some other side effects as well :

http://www.wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code

[Paradox Ethereal]

The Beneficient Open-Source Licence.

I renamed and improved the licence.

"This program, plugin or function is licenced under
The Beneficient Open-Source Licence.

That means that it?s source is released
and shall stay available openly,
to benefit humankind, in the path of God.
And that shall apply to modifications,
derivations, and branches.

Peace Be With You."

I ultimately plan to move my plugins to it. Read my post on how to move entire linux to it, aswell. http://paradoxuncreated.com/Blog/wordpress/?p=5801

Peace Be With You.

[zerothis]

I'd like to go on record as at least one legitimate reply.

They have the right to change the license of the code that they distribute, but they can't change the license for the code that is already in the open and the derivatives of that.

Actually, its been done. there's this recent news <http://www.geekosystem.com/take-work...public-domain/>. But this is hardly the first time. For a mind boggling explanation of how all copyright law in the US is unconstitutional, whimsically retroactive (retroactive law is specifically forbidden by the US constitution), legally invalid, and still going to be enforced, read this: <http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/ja...Vashcroft.html>

I'll sumerise for those who don't want to read the whole thing

• Congress had/has the right to enact copyrights, trademarks, and patents. [ ] {place green checkmark here, ring small bell}
• Congress did not/has not the right to apply copyrights retroactively, but did so anyhow (making unconstitutional, their first set of laws on the matter) [X] {press buzzer}
• Congress did not/has not the right to extend existing copyrights, but did so anyhow (making unconstitutional, all their extensions of their fist set of laws on the matter) [X] {press buzzer}
• All of the congressional extensions of existing copyrights are based on extensions of the unconstitutional extension they could not make of unconstitutional laws concerning copyrights, retroactively or not, but did so anyhow (making unconstitutional, all extensions of their extensions) [X] {press buzzer}
• Congress may now continue as they were [?] {A hollow voice says plugh}

[randomizer]

Congratulations to the author. You are still topping the "Hottest Messages" on LKML even though there's not a single reply

[randomizer]

If Oracle buys the company (and the companies copyrighted Maximal works) what stops them from changing to a different proprietary license? As the copyright holder, they have the legal right to change the license they use for works they own.

They have the right to change the license of the code that they distribute, but they can't change the license for the code that is already in the open and the derivatives of that. The GPL itself covers this point explicitly I believe, so it's more enforceable there, but I think that most courts would also uphold the right for existing works to keep their existing license. It's impossible to enforce it in any other way, although Oracle is one of the few companies that I wouldn't put it past to try.

[energyman]

... and 'open source' is such a well defined legal concept. That crap is crapity crappy crap. Why was this even posted on phoronix? People constantly come up with garbage licences (just look at the GPLv3 mess).

[zerothis]

Seems like a good start. But even if the language is tightened and the details filled in, is the basic concept enforceable? If Oracle buys the company (and the companies copyrighted Maximal works) what stops them from changing to a different proprietary license? As the copyright holder, they have the legal right to change the license they use for works they own.

[DanL]

Who do you think you are as an inhabitant of the democracy? Democracy means peoples rule. All you need is awareness, and you can change anything by politics.

You don't live in the U.S. (where huge corporations are "people" and buying politicians is "free speech"), do you?

[smitty3268]

only supporting people like me. That means people with the logic ability of a hacker, yet a monotheist. So you can expect the same logic sensibility as a fine tuned assembly program, from this.

This. Is. So. Perfect.

I'm grabbing the popcorn.

[randomizer]

I have truly enjoyed this thread. Please, continue.

FWIW, I recommend ditching the background for your site. It's impossible to read anything. You'd be better just leaving it black.