[Aldor-l] Distributing Aldor

[pip88nl at gmail.com]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 01:22:24AM -0400, root wrote:
> >> I wish you would consider simply adopting the Modified BSD license. It
> >> would make it much easier to integrate your work (albeit not Aldor
> >> itself) directly with Axiom. Adding yet-other-licenses to the pile is
> >> only going to make Aldor yet-more-difficult to use.
> >
> >I chose to licence them as ISC, which is similar to the modified BSD
> >licence. Is this in line with what you were saying?
> 
> Axiom is licensed under Modified BSD. I've never heard of ISC.

As far as I understand, the ISC licence has the same implications as the
MBSD.

> I did learn a few things from the lawyer, such as, most people are
> not capable of actually reading and understanding a license. This
> is not an issue of being smart. It is an issue of being trained.

... but then, I might as well just *not* understand at all. I will adopt
the MBSD, as this will ease integration with Axiom, should Aldor ever be
freed. Currently, whether or not I use MBSD or anything else is a
non-issue, because the files I am putting under that licence are not of
much use to anybody that is not coding C or C++.

> The words don't mean what you think they mean. The words MAY have well
> defined meanings based on court cases. Unless you are familiar with
> the court cases you don't understand what you are reading. Court
> cases vary by city, state, federal, and country. I learned
> a lot more about IP issues from him than I ever wanted to know.
> Licensing is a game and I don't know the rules.

Horrible, isn't it? I wish we could all just live in peace and code
happily ever after. Those darned humans, no fairy tales here.

> It is a lot like handing Aldor source code to your lawyer.
> Without training there is no way he's going to understand all of
> the implications of what he's reading.

I never actually considered licences lawyer's documents, but it looks
like that was wrong. Everything seems so simple and straightforward, but
seemingly, it is not.

> So I don't know what the implications would be of trying to mix
> Modified BSD and ISC. And I'm not sure how ISC fits Axiom's goals.
>
> You are, of course, free to choose any license you want.
> But a non-MBSD license just makes it harder for Axiom to 
> use your work. NAG already caused grief, why add more?

Right. The reason I chose ISC was that someone I know, who knows a lot
more about these licencing issues than I do, told me that the ISC licence
was equal to the three-clause BSD licence, it was just easier to read.
But, because I think you are right about the Axiom being MBSD and because
these files are mostly trivial and I wanted to make them public domain,
anyway, but couldn't, due to German law, they will be licenced under the
Modified, three-clause, BSD licence.

Pippijn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mail.aldor.org/pipermail/aldor-l_aldor.org/attachments/20080909/a982d2e2/attachment-0002.bin>