Re: LLGPL Clarification

--------

[I found, to my embarrassment, that I was not yet subsribed to the opensource
mailing list, so I apologize to any who got this mail twice.]

    Date:  Fri, 31 May 2002 09:06:54 -0700
    From:  Duane Rettig <duane>
    
    --------
        Date:  Fri, 31 May 2002 09:30:19 -0400
        From:  "Harper, Michael L." <[email protected]>
    
        Hi,
        
        I have no comment on the LLGPL debate one way or the other. However, if you
        are looking for a new license that has been designed/built by legal experts,
        then take a look at http://www.creativecommons.org/ for some possible help.
        
        Mike Harper
    
    Hi, Mike,
    
    Thanks for the pointer; it looks interesting.  One thing that caught my
    eye, though; in their mission statement:
    http://www.creativecommons.org/aboutus/  in the third paragraph, it says
    
    "Unlike the GPL, Creative Commons licenses will not be designed for
    software, but rather for other kinds of creative works: ..)"  and it goes
    on to list items that I would describe as "assets".  This kind of licensing
    seems to be more oriented toward specific items, rather than for programming
    tools (although I could imaging specific programs being tools themslves).
    The explicit exclusion of software from the list worries me that it would
    thus not necessarily be a good vehicle for licensing software...
    
    Duane
--------