"be consistent" | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
The idea of requiring that license terms be included for posts to Code Catacombs led me to consider a couple of personal biases:
More often than not, I think, people post code here for the benefit of getting peer review -- e.g. before posting to CPAN or other forums where the focus is on distributing code rather than discussing how it's written. For that matter, I'd guess that with relatively few exceptions (notably PM-related code), most of the code downloads are for the sake of reviewing and sending feedback to the author. So, if licensing terms really are felt to be required, it should be possible to include them in a way that adds little or no difficulty to the process of posting code, even for people whose native language (or legal system) is not English. I think it would be okay, and maybe even beneficial for all concerned, to provide, at most, a small number of radio buttons in the Code Catacombs posting form, offering choices for what sort of license should be applied/linked into the post, such as:
The "default PM license", if any such is necessary, ought to be as brief and simple as possible -- maybe the default case should just be "This software is being placed in the public domain by its author, who hopes that it will be useful, and that users will act in a responsible manner when circulating copies of the software in original or modified forms. Use the software at your own risk." (Having something that applies by default could cover all the past nodes where no licensing was specified. I'm not sure about the legality or effectiveness of "updating" the choice of license terms at some later time, unless the update involves a switch to a less restrictive choice.) Having links to the other common license documents might be educational as well as handy. Let's hope that few people will opt for writing their own licensing terms... that really would not simplify things at all. In any event, the notion that legal actions might ensue from violations of license conditions stated on PM nodes seems quite implausible. Even the possibility that a monk might be sued for posting someone else's code as his/her own is pretty remote, since there is no financial gain to (im)poster, and probably not much in terms of tangible financial loss to the "plaintiff". (Of course, the only "practical" reason for imposing licenses on all Code nodes is to make it easier/less worrisome for people at big companies to actually use code from PM -- that in itself is not a bad reason.) In reply to Re: The Code Catacombs submission page should have a license field.
by graff
|
|