[cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
Joachim Durchholz
jo at durchholz.org
Tue Apr 24 04:14:32 EDT 2007
Mike Linksvayer schrieb:
> On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:54 +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> Software is special, but it's not so special that it warrants
>> such a massive exception as having just a single license that uses
>> different language, different legal concepts, etc.
>
> Path dependency. A priori software may not be that special.
> Historically, it is.
That explains the choice, but it doesn't justify it (beyond the usual
"the GPL already does a good deal of what we want, and we don't have
something better" - which I'd agree with).
> Source-unavailable freeware, source-available payware, shareware, etc.
> have been around for decades. That no commonly applied licenses for
> these have developed is a huge warning sign.
Let me retort with "path dependency" to this one :-)
For FOSS, RMS has been massively promoting and pushing the issue. (And
even there, there's a multitude of licenses.)
For non-FOSS, no evangelization has helped shape a standard license.
Probably because it's less controversial.
> Please ignore this sign and develop and evangelize such licenses.
OK :-)
> When you've achieved massive adoption we could talk about a CC
> wrapper for your licenses like we've done with the GPL. But I
> recommend first discussing with people who have thought about these
> issues deeply. Join http://www.crynwr.com/fsb/
I'm not ready to invest a lifetime into this.
However, I'm willing to look up a summary of previous discussions on the
issue and report. No need to reiterate stale arguments after all!
Is there a URL with such a beast? Reading through the archives of a
mailing list that discusses many other topics is probably too much time
for me.
Regards,
Jo
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list