Greetings.
On Tue, 13 May 2014 06:43:41 +0200 "Anthony J. Bentley" <anthony_AT_cathet.us> wrote:
> 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.
That’s not true. At least in the German legal system you need to be
preprared for an eventual legal battle. The more tools you add on your
side, the more you can disprove the other side.
Besides all this theory stuff. The GPL has won in German legal battles
and opened source code. Fighting for MIT/X is not really needed, be‐
cause you can easily add the name of some author in a big manual some‐
where on page 600.
Sincerely,
Christoph Lohmann
Received on Tue May 13 2014 - 06:43:41 CEST