Re: [Caml-list] Licenses - Confusion

[Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc>]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:41:09AM +0100, Daniel Bünzli wrote:
> Well as everyone seems to know and speak for the others, here's my
> take.
> 
> Regardless of copyleft -- which I'm certain could be expressed in a
> BSD-like concise way

Here we're getting *largely* OT for this list, but I bite (SCNR).

The topic you raise here is fairly complex, so I'd be weary of
"certainty" if I were you :) But the problem of the un-readability of
GPLs by random developers, and in particular of GPLs 3.x, is real.
There are interesting experiments in the area to try to improve things.
The most prominent one I'm aware of is copyleft-next; you can read a
recent license release here:

  https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/blobs/master/Releases/copyleft-next-0.3.0

Be sure to also read README and DISCLAIMER in the repository before
trying to do anything with the license (even though the license has a
GPL way out, so risks of screwing up very badly are quite low).

A more introductory article on the underlying legal-ish issues is
available at

  https://lwn.net/Articles/537559/

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Former Debian Project Leader  . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »