Subject: Re: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
From: Lewis Collard <lewis@zquack.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 05:39:09 +0100

Robert Samuel White sez:
> I agree with you, Lewis.  That is selfish of me to say you cannot sell
> my free software.

I didn't say it was selfish. I said the license does not conform with
the open source community. Questions of whether something is "selfish"
are a little beyond the scope of this list.
 
> I'll take that out of the license right now.

Sarcasm, or..?
 
> I still want to see my license approved because I think there is a need
> for it.  I think it would even serve the needs of Henry Piffers, who
> just asked a question on the list with similar concerns that I had.
>
> I think the Simplified Artistic License serves the needs of the artists
> who want a simple yet effective open source license.

What does it solve that the Attribution Assurance license doesn't?
 
> I don't mean to create controversy and I am just going to let this go.
> I suppose it's not important that my license be approved by OSI.  I just
> wanted it to be because I *do* support open source software, but I
> suppose me offering my software for free didn't show you that.

I guess my last email *was* a little too snappy. Your effort is actually
much appreciated and I should have had a little consideration before
flaming. My point still mostly stands; the license doesn't conform to
the OSD. With one minor change it would (and be compatible with the GPL,
which would make it useful to a lot more people).

Lewis
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3