For example, if you check the GPLv3 it says "Must: Include Source", which is incorrect (you must include the source code ONLY if there's distribution).
If you click on the "Include Source" text, then it shows a note saying "Copies of the software/instructions to obtain copies must be distributed with the software".
The quick summary isn't brilliant either.
As TL;DR doesn't work very well if you can get incorrect information.
Um, GPL2 helpfully doesn't include mention of including source in summary, although it's there in the blue box (under "must"). Also, for someone unfamiliar, it would be helpful to explain _which_ source: the library you're including or the entire source of your work which includes the GPL'd library.
"You may copy, distribute and modify the software as long as you retain this license, track changes/dates of in source files and keep it GPL."
You can stack additional licenses on top, but that's not the same as the right to change the license. Also, why isn't apache 2 listed as a "changeable" license?
1. The search is broken. I couldn't find the Apache license using a half-dozen tries, including searches like "Apache", "Apache2", and "ASL".
2. One of the big issues with open source licenses is knowing which licenses are compatible with what. Can I use the EPL with the ASL? What about the LGPL? That information is hard to find.
It's mid 2012, why are you browsing the web with javascript off? I realize you want safeguard privacy and whatnot, but at least turn it on for website you use legitimately.
I hack on my mechanical keyboard, with my keyboard driven window manager, using my television as a monitor, because I don't pay for cable while I browse the interwebs using emacs or maybe elinks (with TABS on but JAVASCRIPT OFF) unless I have to use a graphical terminal for something like flash or java in which case I use firefox with noscript and allow scripts as needed until things work.
But, I recently shaved my neckbeard. So there's that going for my class!
"Any" software license? Hardly. Although this is quite useful for the FOSS licenses they have now, what I really would like is to have all those licenses for commercial proprietary software to be translated into something clear. Same for websites and online services served through apps.
This is Kevin. Finally able to get an account (it kept on telling me "too many new accounts"). Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that your thoughts are heard and put into action!
Sorry I posted this before you were ready for it to be public! I was asking a friend about a license and he sent me your site and one thing lead to another...
The two more common uses of "shortly" indicate something is going to happen soon and that something was phrased in a curt, abrupt manner.
Almost all uses of shortly that mean "concise" also tend to have the curt, abrupt, somewhat negative connotation. The only times I've seen uses of shortly that have only the "brief" shade of meaning, there is still a connotation of something simple, that somehow someone has overlooked. (Example: "to put it shortly," which is interchangeable with, "to put it simply.")
Because of this, no native English speaker would title a such headline in a positive sense with the adjective "shortly" meaning brief.
Admittedly, this is confusing because "shortly" used in the sense of "happening soon" does often carry a positive connotation. Unfortunately, English is Byzantine and full of exceptions and connotations and not completely orthogonal. (It is orthogonal here from a strictly syntactic sense, but not from the common usage one.)
Perhaps some examples of licences could be good on the front page. I wasn't really sure what to search for, and all the ones I put in weren't found, and then I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't be able to tl;dr very well.
Although this would qualify as a "Thanks" kind of response, I'd like to add a note on how much pain this solves for several people in my circle. We ended up several times searching and trying to find a single place for a summary of the licenses (opensource.org worked well in keeping everything else at the same place though).
Finally, what I've been looking for. No I can easily see some (at least the major) differences between licenses, or perform a very quick "is this library ok for commercial use?" assert
I'm missing some contact information on the page. The feedback button redirects me to some Google Moderator page, whatever that is, but aside from the black top bar the page stays blank. Yes, I already tried rebooting...
What I wanted to say is already commented here on HackerNews though: searching for "GPL" for example, you get a not-found. You'll indeed need to wait for suggestions to come up before you can click a licence. These suggestions should appear on the results page too.
Does the "embed options" button ever give more than a link? It seems a bit pointless as it is, as you can just copy that from the address bar.
Also, is there any approval process? If not, I think people should have to register to submit, have a "vouch" button, or something, so we know who we're trusting.
Finally, when all the fields in the submit form have validation errors, the submit button disappears.
This is a great idea! I would agree with brixon that there is no need for a search box, yet, but I've been looking for something exactly like this. I'm sure you'll get the kinks worked out. Thanks!
1) It shows no differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3. It's not a good sign.
2) I would put shitloads of banners everywhere saying that you're using this site at your own risk.