| |||||||||||||
Project Harmony decloaksProject Harmony decloaksPosted Apr 11, 2011 18:25 UTC (Mon) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846)In reply to: Project Harmony decloaks by aliguori Parent article: Project Harmony decloaks
> I don't think it makes a ton of sense to have (2) and yet also have (3) and (4)
You are assuming that the set of OSI- and FSF-approved licenses will never change. That is an unwarranted assumption. Entirely new free licenses might appear, new versions of existing non-free licenses might become free, and new versions of existing free licenses might become non-free. The future is unpredictable, and licenses can evolve in strange directions.
(Log in to post comments)
Project Harmony decloaks Posted Apr 12, 2011 9:48 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
I think they meant that you could get rid of (3) and (4) and just keep (2)
______ can be replaced by "an FSF approved license" just as easily as by any other text. So having these explicit options serves no legal purpose.
If we envisioned this as a web form, it might be slightly easier to click (3) than to pick "an FSF approved license" but if this is to be paperwork that requires signatures and so on then you've shaved a few seconds off what's perhaps several hours of work.
|
|||||||||||||