im.py: a python communications tool

[Chris Angelico]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:47:11 -0700, jhunter.dunefsky wrote:
>
>> Actually, my current licence can be found here:
>> https://github.com/jhunter-d/im.py/blob/master/LICENCE.  Whaddaya think
>> about this, Useneters?
>
>
> I think you're looking for a world of pain, when somebody uses your
> software, it breaks something, and they sue you. Your licence currently
> means that you are responsible for the performance of your software.
>
> Why don't you use a recognised, tested, legally-correct licence, like the
> MIT licence, instead of trying to be clever and/or lazy with a one-liner?
>
> E.g. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Plus there's the whole brevity thing. If I see something that says
"MIT license", I don't need to read the details. Compare the README
for one of my projects:

https://github.com/Rosuav/Gypsum/blob/master/README

(Actually, I need to update that; there are a few solved problems
listed there as still open.) You read "Licensed under the BSD Open
Source license" and then you can stop reading - you know what your
rights are. The lawyers at Roy Smith's company would have no trouble
comprehending this, and no trouble deciding whether or not it's
allowed - they either do or do not (there is no try).

License proliferation is actually a major problem. If I were to lift
code from your program and incorporate it into something GPL3, am I
violating either's terms? What if I want to put that code into
something BSD 2-clause? Am I allowed? At least if you use a well-known
license, I can do a quick web search, coming up with something like
[1], but a custom or unusual license would require careful analysis of
terms.

[1] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html

ChrisA