open content (fwd)

["Aaron D. Turner" <aturner@vicinity.com>]

Thought everyone would like to hear Bart's (my laywer friend) comments
on the OPL/NOD situation.  I'm going to forward our lic to the list
and see what happens.  Bart strongly suspects that Bruce Perens and
other lic gods won't have any issues with our lic.

-- 
Aaron Turner, CNE   aturner@vicinity.com  650.237.0311 x252
Network Engineer    Vicinity Corp.        http://www.vicinity.com
Email-to-page: 6505721411.1146752@pagenet.net [Subject & Body sent]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:39:25 -0700
From: Bart Decrem <bartd@pluggedin.org>
To: aturner@vicinity.com
Subject: open content

aaron,

I checked out the open content license.  The thing I like about it is that
it's SHORT and CLEAR and that they want their license to be a MODEL.  Those
are all good reasons to use the license.  Note that it does not address your
wishes to be notified when people use your content and to receive
modifications made by third parties. You have to decide how strongly you
feel about that.  Remember: Open Content is not the norm, not even in the
Linux world - cf. Slashdot, Freshmeat etc - check out your favorite Linux
sites and look for their copyright notice.

So whichever way you go, in my opinion, you're doing a really cool thing
that BTW is compliant with the open source definition. Having spent some
time following license flame wars, I do NOT believe that your modified dmoz
license will stir any kind of controversy.

bart