pondering how it could be made so that eulas aren't so terrible
i wonder if it'd help to have standardized ones kinda like how you know the basic ideas of what you're allowed to do if you see the header "GNU General Public License version whatever"
it'd kinda be nice for that to be an option for non-free licenses too? go with a modular design like CC so you can add and remove bits, but they're standardized bits
and then have plain english explanations in addition to the requisite legalese
-F
@packbat yeah! FOSS isn't the entire world and at least until we destroy capitalism can't be all software however much techbros want it to be, so proprietary licenses should exist too.... ones that are standardized so that you can see like "Standard Proprietary License ver. X plus modules Y, Z, Q" and then know what you're allowed to do
-F
@Felthry yeah!
and, like, even separate from the economic aspect, there are reasons not to go FOSS - Joseph White made PICO-8 closed-source for /artistic/ reasons, because if it was open source, people would start forking it to remove or ease limitations and never give it a chance to prove itself as designed
and it'd totally be possible to have, say, software licenses with a timeout provision - e.g. after [x] date this becomes CC-BY-SA frex - to let someone get income for selling something while making a tangible legal promise to release their work to the public
- 🦗 🦊
@packbat i don't think we'd ever get EA or anyone to use the standard licenses but it would be a very good thing to have
-F
@Felthry tbh? if they were out there and battle-tested, maybe we could get EA and such to use it
and in the meantime, it'd benefit indie creators who can't afford lawyers to write their own licenses
- 🦊 🦗
@packbat i feel like making such a license and then making the license itself (not the stuff it licenses though) CC-BY-SA or something would be not too terribly difficult for a lawyer familiar with software licensing law, too?
-F