Fontana: What open source licensing could learn from Creative Commons (Opensource.com)

> The danger for open source, at least, is excessive influence from my own guild, excessive influence by what (for lack of a better term) I have thought of as "FLOSS establishment institutions", and insufficient participation by developer constituencies.

I'd say the danger today would come from "Linux" organisations who have funders and boards of directors that are mostly representatives of pro-patent, proprietary software companies (Linux Foundation, for example).

Developers don't necessarily have to do the legal work themselves, that can be left to community members who specialise in law.

But how do we differentiate between community members who specialise in law, and legal people from "Linux" organisations? Many community members who want a legal job go and work for these organisations since they have money.

Tough problem. I think we're best off leaving well enough alone. FSF controls the main licence for historical reasons which couldn't be recreated today, and FSF's control is the main thing keeping the licence free. In short, we got lucky. Let's not spoil it.