Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 12, 2020 at 20:21 comment added supercat @JörgWMittag: I would think that the best way to accommodate ease of decoding with versatility would be to assign letters or numbers to things that may be allowed or forbidden, and then have a license specified as: permissions expressly granted: a, e, f; expressly denied, h,q. If e.g. permission is granted to distribute works in physical form, and nothing would forbid selling bound books, then that would be allowed, but a license might specify e.g. that distribution in tangible forms is generally allowed, with the exception of bound books.
Jul 12, 2020 at 14:32 comment added Jörg W Mittag This is unfortunately not understood by enough people. This is also the reason why the OSI rejects licenses that are similar to ones that have already been submitted. The idea is to have a small pool of well-understood, well-known licenses, so that all you need to read is the three letters M, I, and T, or B, S, and D, or G, P, and L, instead of having to hire a lawyer and analyze the entire license word-for-word-for-word.
Jul 12, 2020 at 4:36 comment added MadHatter @cat40 could you? Yes, I don't see why not. Should you? I wouldn't advise it. Someone has to wade through the licence before they can reuse the code, trying to decide if it's 3BSD and X, or 3BSD or X, or X which looks like 3BSD but isn't, or, or... If that someone is my linked speaker, five seconds is not enough time to do anything other than say "it's 3BSD, you can use it", or "it's not plain 3BSD, I'll get back to you in a month or two" - which for all practical purposes is no.
Jul 11, 2020 at 22:06 comment added cat40 Could you do both, and it licensed under 3BSD and a modified BSD allowing binary distribution?
Jul 11, 2020 at 16:16 history edited MadHatter CC BY-SA 4.0
added 7 characters in body
Jul 11, 2020 at 13:29 history answered MadHatter CC BY-SA 4.0