|
|
|
|
|
|
by filesystemdude
2617 days ago
|
|
|
> Amateur is ad hominem, and also simply incorrect. You're right. I do owe you an apology for that. Sorry. I still find the circumstances _around_ license discussions like this to be filled with a frustrating amount of amateur lawyering that can be misleading and dangerous. As an open source developer and content creator, I can't tell you how many times I've come across something in GitHub with a "clever" license and thought "great, now not only can I not use any of this, but I see a whole contributor community who clearly believe they are contributing to an open source license when they very much are not." |
|
|
I could not agree more. Except that I'd blame the lawyers, not the amateurs. There will be amateur discussion, because there are far more needs of the kind than affordable and available lawyers to serve them. If the level of amateur discussion bothers lawyers, the lawyers should raise the level of amateur discussion.
Gregg Toland famously told Orson Welles there wasn't anything about the camera he couldn't learn in half a day. That's true of law, too. With a baseline liberal education, if you put in enough days, you've got it. From there, you develop by immersion and participation. Simple as that.
I do what I can. With plain language. With public writing and participation in public projects:
https://fieldguide.kemitchell.com/
https://oss.kemitchell.com/
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-b...
https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0