Simple Public License (SimPL)

[phitsc]

I found the Simple Public License (SimPL) today. Anyone ever heard of it or used it?

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/simpl-2.0.html

Any other news on the license front?

[Tuxman]

A CC-licensed license? 
(Hmm, I still prefer the WTFPL.)

[daddydave]

Seems like it's GPL 2.0 without the B.S., in fact I noticed he said in the license it is intended to be equivalent to GPL 2.0.

[Tuxman]

The GPL is too restrictive. 

[daddydave]

The GPL is too restrictive.  

I'm not a big fan of the the GPL either, but Stallman's "flowery" crap writing style  and manifesto rant to realize what the license is actually saying, so I am all for rewriting it for clarity's sake. Stallman himself should have done so long ago.

[phitsc]

I think SimPL seems about right for e.g. N.A.N.Y. kind of projects, should one choose to open source them (thinking about this thread).

[Perry Mowbray]

I think SimPL seems about right for e.g. N.A.N.Y. kind of projects, should one choose to open source them (thinking about this thread).

It would be nice to have a selection of licences for the posabilities: DonationWare, FreeWare, Open Source 

[40hz]

The GPL is too restrictive.  

I'm not a big fan of the the GPL either, but Stallman's "flowery" crap writing style  and manifesto rant to realize what the license is actually saying, so I am all for rewriting it for clarity's sake. Stallman himself should have done so long ago.

Why should he? (Not that he would have the final say on anything anyway. The FOSS model doesn't work like that.)


Rather than blaming Stallman, bemoaning the terms of GPL, or dissing somebody else's license model, I'd like to make a modest proposal.

People can have a software license work any way they want it to.

All that would be required is for someone to write it.  

And figure out how to enforce the terms such that this 'better' license actually meant something.  


Now what's stopping anybody, hmmm?  

[rxantos]

I have nothing against GPL, but I do have an issue on their advocates using the term "Free Software, as in freedom." to describe their license.

GPL imposes a restriction on the use of the source. Since it imposes a restriction is not free as in freedom, because restrictive is the opposite of free.

Thus all the GPL being "Free Software", is just propaganda based on a lie. Is like, we are protecting your freedom, btw take this ball and chain, it will help us to better protect your freedom.

Anyway, I like this SimplePL license because it does not hide its meaning. Nor does it claim to be protecting your freedom while imposing restrictions on you.