Commentary: Linkware licenses can go awry

[housetier]

I came across this via my numerous rss and other feeds (see attachments). I think Joe Brockmeier raises interesting questions. I don't really have problems with naming or linking something in order to use it. But I hadn't thought of the issues he thinks of.

Here are the solutions to the issues, read the full article please

(...)
Link requirements aren't an insurmountable problem, so long as the author takes a few additional steps to clarify the terms of a linkware license.

One, the license should spell out the terms for redistribution, and if it's allowed. What if I want to redistribute the theme with modifications, plus a couple of additional links? (...)

Two, the license should be included with the theme or application itself.(...)

Finally, the author should specify what happens if the domains that are linked to change hands, or if the content at that URL is unavailable.
(...)

[Eóin]

Yeah fascinating read, the points he makes had never occurred to me either.

Even with his suggestions for cleaning up ambiguities in the license there is still the problem that if the domain changes hands how many people are going to realize that and change/remove their links with could otherwise end up pointing to very unsavory sites.

[housetier]

Very few people would realize, and even less would care I guess. This article has me thinking about the issues raised. I must admit I almost never read the license.

I get it, try it out, and if it's good I get "involved with the community". By that time I will have learned one way or the other if was doing the right thing. However, in these times and ages¹, I might be better of studying and understanding the licenses.

License, intellectual property, copyright... it's become very nasty 


¹: is that the right term? What's the correct proverb?

[Edvard]

is that the right term? What's the correct proverb?

"in this day and age"