Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

[smitty3268]

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.

Oh, you're one of those people.

[Paradox Ethereal]

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.

[smitty3268]

The licence is simple. If such a simple licence has not enough legal background, then obviously someone needs to put a really great Occhamz razor on legal structures, and put the human back in centre.

If that's the solution, we should all just give up now. Reforming the entire legal system to make sense? I'd bet good money mankind is colonizing other planets before that happens.

Indeed if I were to say "open source" online, most people would understand what I mean.

I don't know, we can't even agree in this thread.

[Paradox Ethereal]

"the licence allows it" ?

One talks about mine being legally weak, and this even is completely horrenduous?
About legallity, I can`t imagine a court, saying "ok, someone took your code and released it as closed source, we can`t see your licence covering this". How full of shit is it possible to get in these courts?

Then again, I am watching Breivik trial. And I am noticing a certain legal language. hopefully the language and process itself, has not become too obscure, to actually do something sensible.

I do believe it is called "law and justice". You don`t have to think a lot about that most of the time. What I am seeing, is ofcourse extreme penalty, peoples minds are already made up, we are just waiting for the "dance" to be done. I mean if the guy got shot, nobody would care. It`s a bit odd because they are doing their dance, and he is doing his, and it is almost like he is a joke, making a fool of them, as if his dance is somehow relevant, but yet we have to watch it because of the whole legal dance around it.

The worst possibly being how "they care" about Breivik. That is the legal language. But honestly do they really care about Breivik?


The licence is simple. If such a simple licence has not enough legal background, then obviously someone needs to put a really great Occams razor on legal structures, and put the reasonability back in it.

Peace.

[vertexSymphony]

BSD licence = you work 10 years, on a project. A company comes along picks it up, lets you starve, picks up your patches, and makes money. killing it`s developer and itself. Is that what you call open source?

?A privative FORK? sure, the license itself allows it. if you don't want that, you probably should p?ck another license (tool) for the job : End of The Story

[XorEaxEax]

Hopefully this gets people thinking. GPL does about as much damage as good relative to open source.

What are you yapping about? No one is forced to use GPL (or GPLv3 as your title stated), you can licence your code as GPLv2 only (Linux, Git) or use any other licence you want.

[wizard69]

Legal or not we need something better than GPL3

Hopefully this gets people thinking. GPL does about as much damage as good relative to open source. This is probably why there is a proliferation of open source licenses as it is. Which brings up the question of why bother with another license if so many are already available.

[XorEaxEax]

I have a suspicion based on Michael's earlier comment that all he really intended with this post was to ignite a GPL vs BSD flamewar in his comment section, so we are now playing right into his hands.

Suspicion? I'd say it was obvious flame-bait.

As for licences, anyone can create a licence and as such there are tons of software licences out there. However unless someone actually use them to licence their code these licences won't make a lick of difference. The open source world we live in has pretty much settled on GPL/LGPL and BSD/MIT.

[WorBlux]

What should be so difficult to understand about open vs closed source? What country is this?

There is no legal definition of these terms, nor is there any scientific or expert consensus. There is an array of popular definitions, none of which really have the better claim. The author should really work what his ideas mean in terms of the current legal structure of copyright as the substantial body or the text.

[WorBlux]

This is not newsworthy.
The idiot who wrote it knows as little about IP law as he knows about grammar and spelling.
Who wrote this, some 10-year-old kid?
I wouldn't expect it to stand up in court.

If you want a good license, check out the ISC license, it is similar to the 2-clause BSD and MIT license, but even shorter due to things being striped out that were made redundant by the Berne convention.

I agree the ISC looks unambiguous and uses legally meaningful terms.