From: Gregory Brown Date: 2007-03-31T22:49:26+09:00 Subject: Re: New presentation on Ruby On 3/31/07, Chad Perrin wrote: > I wasn't referring to writing your own license. The attribution/share- > alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I > provided. Please read upwards more carefully. http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/246093 > > Bad idea for community friendly projects. I don't want to learn your > > license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other > > people will be likely to understand, too. > > Good for you. No need to be rude. > 1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it. Dual licensing is an acceptable way to provide both your terms and a more standard set of terms, but it's not ideal. It means if I want to contribute back to you, I still need to understand your home grown license, which, at least in my case, means you'd be less likely to see contributions from me. > 2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to > "live with" other extant licenses. It wasn't a capricious decision. It > was a decision born of frustration. In any case, the license I created > was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with > Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing) > then you'll have no problem with what I use. Except that I don't want yet another license to remember.