Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Pat McCann]

Grant Griffin <g2 at seebelow.org> writes:

> If that's a hint, I guess I'll have to just say that I've already got too many irons in
> the fire.  So I mainly just try to "educate" the public a little when the opportunity
> presents itself.  However, one small effort I've made in this way is the "Wide Open
> License" (WOL), which you'll find at http://www.dspguru.com/wol.htm.

Looks good.  I don't have time to read the whole page just now, but I
will.  I'm suprised you didn't mention it before.

Excellent name!  I wish I'd thought of that first.

Just curious: The license requires the license to appear in the source
of derivatives.  Please explain why that doesn't make it apply to the
derivative. (Say I just changed some code.) If the WOL and my
closed-source licenses both appear in the source, which takes
precedence?  How does anyone know which license applies to what code?  I
have some (unsatisfying) answers, but am curious to hear yours.  (I
don't recall you answering a similar question about Python a couple
weeks ago. Sorry if you did.)

> The WOL is about the same as other popular "do what you want except sue me" open-source
> licenses.  The primary difference is just marketing.  Since the "GPL" is a sort of "brand
> name", a brand name alternative like "WOL" is needed.  (I think many casual open-source
> authors just put the GPL license on their work because "that's the thing to do"; I think
> many of them don't even really think about or understand how that limits adoption of their
> work--which is probably why they made it open-source in the first place.)

That's bothered me too.  I'm sure you're right; one sees evidence of it
on Usenet (not just the newbie-frequented groups) and Slashdot all the time.  

> Also, I think the concept of "wide open" --which is to carry the idea of "open" source to
> its logical conclusion by making the software open for _all_ uses, without restriction--is
> a good marketing idea.  That bogus "freedom" thing that the copyleft folks have been
> pushing has been an effective marketing concept, so to compete with it, one needs an
> equally appealing marketing concept.  Not only is the idea of carrying "openness" to its
> logical conclusion appealing, but--in contrast to the freedom thing--it's even 100.0%
> truthful. <pinch me!>

Well, 99.94%, at least, using the open-source community's definition of "open".
100% if it means "readable".