The license is pretty straightforward and fills in the gaps where the others fail to protect OSS creators (leading to headaches like w/ Redis). Perhaps it's too idealistic to think people will just read it and see if it matches their needs?
no, i've already spent the necessary hours of debating to what extent the agpl3 is compatible with cc-by-sa 4, i don't want to invest those hours again in a license that's used by only one project and, if history is any guide, probably contains important mistakes in how it's written and will need to be redrafted after those mistakes are noticed. i don't have a legal department
It's a stretch to call it a legal document (technically, yes, but it's written so that anyone can understand it). I wrote it myself in plain english [1].
Assuming the project/tool was interesting and that was a concern, why not just forward it to your legal department (or manager) to get clarification on if it's an option?
And then you have to wait a month and more and they log time on your project budget. Legal department takes that kind of stuff seriously and don't give off the cuff opinions. So now your project is severely delayed you are under budget and the only thing you got from it is that you maybe gets permission to use a new library.
Ooooor... you can just pick one of hundreds of options with a more commonly used licenses that have already been approved by them many years ago.
This is not realistic. You’re asking new users to go out on a limb to even figure out if they can work with your stuff. the casual “hey send an email to legal” suggestion just cost your potential collaborators weeks of time and thousands of dollars before they can even evaluate the product itself
