Re: licenses revisited

[Nadim Shaikli <shaikli at yahoo dot com>]

--- Mohammed Elzubeir <elzubeir at fakkir dot net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 08:58:47PM +0100, Chahine M. Hamila wrote:
> > 
> > 1) We are not opensource.org
> 
> Correct.. but we need a reference point.

I think if a license allows for people at large to view/modify and return
code to the author with no money involved - that is good enough for me.
All the other stuff that might be associated with that is simply noise
(and should be ignored by us).

Bare in mind that most (if not all), open source licenses bar export to
such countries as Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc etc (and the list will grow I'm
sure).  So for us to play into that game, we'd alienate half of our user
base.  As such, we should try not to maintain any one license or adhere
to any one rule except the rule of "openness" in general -- if there are
restrictions or side-notes, so be it as long as they don't restrict
more than 50% of the world population.  Those licenses, if you really
think about it, are worthless - who is to day that .il will NOT use Haydar's
work (its shear "statement" making at best - which we should not engage
in nor comment on as long as the "openness" factor is adhered to).  If .il
catches on this and comes to us for comment, we can simply note that we
were NOT the orig authors and we didn't have any say on any projects license
except those "home-grown" ones (if that even).  Could this fire back in our
faces (meaning .il starts producing code with no Arab licenses - like fribidi, 
etc), sure it could and that needs to be thought of as well.  Simply put,
we should remove ourselves from all this license debate and make a clear
statement on what we require as a minimum and stick to it (just openness).

Vague, but I think the point is made.

 - Nadim


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
http://auctions.yahoo.com