Good F/OSS license summary

From: Reece Hart <reece(at)harts(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Good F/OSS license summary
Date: 2008-02-01 19:17:19
Message-ID: 1201893439.6460.63.camel@snafu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Folks-

A recent thread
( http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-01/msg01595.php )
suggests that there's a lot of interest and knowledge about F/OSS
licenses on this list. So...

Does anyone know of an authoritative, complete, and current license
comparison? After a lot of trolling, I've been able to satisfy one or
two of those criteria, but not all.

-*-mode:opinion-*-
It's disappointing that we as a community have yet to converge on just a
few licenses that differ only by the few characteristics that *really*
matter (e.g., virality, commercializability, code
reciprocation/share-alike, etc). The glut of license options and license
compatibility issues create enormous confusion and even some unfortunate
internecine FUD -- never mind the real uncertainty caused by the lack of
case law in this area. I long for a Creative Commons-like family of
licenses for code.

Thanks,
Reece

--
Reece Hart, http://harts.net/reece/, GPG:0x25EC91A0

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Atkins 2008-02-01 19:30:21 Re: Good F/OSS license summary
Previous Message Chris Browne 2008-02-01 17:01:48 Re: Is PostGreSql's Data storage mechanism "inferior"?