For those that haven't noticed, all Phoronix news is not written very seriously... if there's a Linux event/news that's also funny, entertaining, weird, or interesting, it also sometimes gets mentioned - especially if it's going to lead into an interesting forum discussion. Note that this article is titled "A New Open-Source License..." and begins with "Some user, after having..." I certainly don't think Maximal will be overtaking the GPL anytime soon
I definatly spured more comments then a lot of othere (and serious) news have
Sounds like a product of, or inspired by the Linux Action Show.
"Negative in the freedom dimension" started it off.
I'm guessing that you're the author of the license (or maybe you both had the same English teacher).
Originally Posted by AJenbo
Defiantly not, I'm a bit dyslexic though.
Some journalist, after having run out of real news, picked a random post on the linux kernel mailing list. The resulting article is being called Crapimal...
Originally Posted by phoronix
What a great idea to come up with a new license. I can do it too!
This source code is released under the DtRT license. To comply with this license, you must Do the Right Thing with the source code.
If there is anything but querulants here, have a look at my thinking here, where I actually detail some of the happenings around this. I wrote this licence after realizing RMS associated idolaterous religion, and unreasonable thinking (open source is not open source etc) with this.
Please also see my standard reply to retards at the end.
Well, the legal issue is a bit of a catch 22. Because if something ends up in court, it basically comes down to "But these are the terms which you have read and agreed to."
But now, we have the situation that for a lisence agreement to stand up in court it has to be so complicated that no one can understand the agreement that "they agreed too". But, if you make it simpler and shorter, like this lisense, people might actually read AND understand it. But, then it won't hold up in court.
Personally, I think that it should become an international law, that each and every single lisense agreement has a short layman's explanation at the top of what they're basically agreeing too. That way, ordinary users know what they are agreeing too, and if it does turn into a law-suit the laywers can throw the specific detailed clauses at each other to their heart's content.
What should be so difficult to understand about open vs closed source? What country is this?