On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 06:01:25PM +0000, Daniel James wrote: > If the GPL was one > paragraph more people would have read it before using the software. I > would guess that a tiny minority of libre software users have read > the GPL from start to finish. It's small fry compared with many commercial EULA's. > We need poets, not lawyers, writing licences. That's fine until push comes to shove and the licence gets tested in court..... > If the licence can't be > printed around the perimeter of a CD in a readable type size, then > it's too long. If only... You could drop all the clauses in the GPL about money, which are only there because people are inclined to compare it with shareware licences that say you are not allowed to sell the software. You could also have a 2-part GPL, with one (short) part about copying the software and a second part which 99% of users don't need to read, about modifying the software. > As for contacting copyright holders before commercial use, that gives > me the option to say no to something like a bit of my music being > used in a TV advert, for example. I might not approve of the > association with the product There you're way out of the domain of the GPL, which explicitly forbids any discrimination about how the software is *used*, and is only about copying. -- Anahata anahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tel: 01638 720444 http://www.treewind.co.uk Mob: 07976 263827
