3 ms·
The MIT license is 167 words, hardly a "giant castle of complexity" $ cat mit.txt | wc 19 167 1065 $ cat bsd.txt | wc 10 219 1479
by conroy 13y ago
The MIT license is 167 words, hardly a "giant castle of complexity"
$ cat mit.txt | wc
19 167 1065
$ cat bsd.txt | wc
10 219 1479
$ cat CC0.txt | wc
29 978 6384
- gojomo 13y agoIt's not their dissatisfaction with those particular (most-permissive) licensing choices that they are signalling. Rather, it's the tangled mess of other twisty-licenses and license-interactions and license-debates (like this one) that they've had to navigate. You're essentially suggesting they should just shut up and maximize others' convenience. OK, that's a valid opinion, and if their only goal is maximal reuse, CC0 is great. But their choice of crazy-ass license is an expressive act, like the coding itself, and you haven't established why your convenience trumps their other expressive goals.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- anotherhue 13y agoSure, they're actually impressively short, but are we saying that all software devs must understand the state of IP law and its associated terminology and pitfalls? As an unfortunate side note, none of the licences you listed have any terms relating to patents, (unlike the apache licence, which is considerably larger) which is one more tangled-web that a dev has to think about.