[conspire] d-check, minimal licensing

[Rick Moen]

----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 01:36:23 -0800
From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
To: Jesse Monroy <jesse650 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: d-check stuff (I forgot we had a discussion awaiting)
Organization: If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Quoting Jesse Monroy (jesse650 at gmail.com):

> Yes, I recognize the X Windows influence. If I recall right, there is some
> minor clause that makes MIT different - and don't recall what it is.
> Something to do with hardware - as best as I recall.

Nope.  Nothing about hardware.  Really, the only functional difference
is its explicit reference to 'sublicense'.

> Yes, I recognize the "burnz" (sp?) clause, and I find it annoying.

Sorry?  Doesn't ring a bell.

> Truthfully the extended fictional conversation was not helpful or usefully.
> Too vague on some points - interjected with non-sensical court rulings.

Certainly didn't mean to annoy.  I just wanted to explain some reasons
why a copyright statement and explicit licence are useful, in a world
where copyright law is real and matters even if you don't care and find
it annoying.

There's also a practical reason having nothing to do with 'non-sensical
court rulings':  to avoid irrelevance.

These days, given choice between a work with a standard licence and one
with something weird, most people will ignore the latter.  Example:  I
just updated http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/muas.html yesterday.  Notice
the two sections listing proprietary MUAs.  Of 28 total, exactly one of
them still exists and is maintained, one called Scribe.

That's largely because people had alternatives, and switched to them.

> Put BSD License on it.

Will do.  And you should append those lines to your head version too.


----- End forwarded message -----