Re: BSD Protection License
Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
[Whatever MUA you're using (Eudora for windows?) breaks threads.
Kindly consider using a MUA that adds In-Reply-To: and References:
headers.]
My MUA is fine; the thread was broken by the fact that I was replied to
an email Adam sent me, and I CCed my reply to debian-legal.
This email might break the thread again -- because I'm replying to an
email which wasn't sent to me, by copying and pasting out of the list archives.
> I don't think that's necessary. Licenses are interpreted by
> "reasonable men";
No. Licenses are interpreted by judges and/or juries.
Judges and/or juries, who are assumed to be reasonable. I don't see
that there is any confusion inherent in a license which states "You may do
X if Y. You may do X if Z"; but even if there was confusion, it is to be
interpreted in a manner which makes sense.
> At one point, I considered adding a clause 4.5, "You may modify and
> distribute ... the following conditions: a) You must be alive, b) You
> must be dead", but I decided that would be a bit overly frivolous.
Clauses like these may make the entire license null and void because
the license itself doesn't have a atomicity clause[1].
Footnote parse error: Footnote not found.
Again, I
strongly suggest working with an attorney experienced in license
creation before writing a license like this or advocating that people
license their software under such a license.
I'm not advocating anything.
>Just for the record, I concur that the license is not DFSG Free.
For the record, can you tell me specifically which parts of the DFSG are
not satisfied by this license?
Colin Percival
Reply to: