Re: [Scheme-reports] Unclear word in license grant

[John David Stone <stone@x>]

        Hikari Boulders writes:

 > What is wrong with everyone saying "I want this to be in public domain 
 > or as public as permissible by law"
 > 
 > and then we would not have to play the lawyers games and can concentrate 
 > on important stuff.

        Even if you say this, trolls just won't leave you alone, as the
current controversy shows.  The approach you suggest actually encourages
them.  Remember, Musical Notation kept this thread going on and on by
pretending to want to microparse the variant formulations that contributors
to the discussion used in describing the open-ended R6RS grant.  The most
effective troll repellent that I have found is to point, over and over and
over again if necessary, to a big pile of legalese that says essentially
the same thing you want to say, in language that can only be challenged in
a courtroom.

        The advantage of the Creative Commons licenses is that some of the
world's greatest copyright lawyers have already done all the hard work:
They have concocted airtight guarantees, expressed them formally in
legalese, and made the results of these tedious labors available to
everyone at no charge.  As a result, trolls have a harder time tricking you
into playing lawyers' games if you use a Creative Commons license, which
means that you can indeed concentrate on more important stuff.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports