Re: [DISCUSS] PUWL v1.0 – P-EADCA Universal Waiver License

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 4:31 AM Balázs Hámorszky <[email protected]> wrote:

> I hereby stand by the original intent of PUWL: to maximize freedom for
> both authors and users.
>

This is fine. But how you can achieve it _and_ improve on current licenses
is less clear. A different license, rather than one widely perceived as
better, would not really be a contribution because it would increase
license proliferation and the combinatorial problem of multiple licenses on
a work and their inter-license compatibility issues.


> I respectfully disagree with the notion that only lawyers should have the
> exclusive right to work on matters that affect the developer community in
> the legal space.
>

Oh no, that's not what I was asking for. I am not a lawyer. I would not,
however, issue the release version of a license without one, for fear of it
hurting someone. This is not just talk, I have involved lawyers in the work
on Post Open.


> That said, I recognize the importance of legal clarity and will take the
> feedback into account for any future revision.
>

I acknowledge the additional difficulty.

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org