Re: [dev] [GENERAL] License manifest

From: Anthony J. Bentley <>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:30:22 -0600

Nick writes:
> Quoth Anthony J. Bentley:
> > Nick writes:
> > > GPL is nearly as conceptually simple as permissive licenses, I
> > > think.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Clearly, the GPL is just as simple to understand and explain to others
> > as a permissive license. After all, copyright law is complex.
> I don't think you read what I wrote carefully. I was using the word
> conceptual to separate the general meaning of the license with its
> legal implementation, which I fully agree is (probably needlessly)
> long and tedious (hence why I mentioned Fontana's recent simple
> version as a nice thing).

"To separate the general meaning of the license with its legal
implementation" is ridiculous. The legal implementation is the only part
that matters.

This is the main failing of Creative Commons. Who can explain the difference
between CC BY-SA 3.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0? Between ported and unported? Even the
Creative Commons website states on every license page:

  This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license.

Who has actually read the Creative Commons licenses? Who has read the GPL?
Summaries and general concepts are pointless because they are not what is
legally in effect. The only sensible license is one that is so simple that
it needs no summary.

Anthony J. Bentley
Received on Tue May 13 2014 - 04:30:22 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue May 13 2014 - 04:36:06 CEST