On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:54:39 +0200
Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:
Hey Mattias,
> I generally think licenses are easier to grok
> if they are long. They omit less information.
> But I have to agree that ISC is easier to
> understand than MIT. For one thing, it does
> not use any words that require a legal dictionary
> and most of it can be understood by a 10-year
> old that does not even have English as her
> native language. It also does not use any
> fuzzy words like “substantial”. ISC leaves all
> cruft and fuzzyness to copyright law.
yeah and that's the good point about it. It's clear
what it implies without hiding it behind long
paragraphs.
> Now, if we could only get rid of the disclaimer,
> but I suspect it is required in some jurisdictions.
It's required in all jurisdictions. I challenge you
to find one where this isn't needed, afaik there
is none.
Commercial law is pretty clear in this case. If
something blows your computer up, you could
theoretically sue. So yeah, let's keep it.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev_AT_frign.de>
Received on Thu Jun 02 2016 - 16:47:40 CEST