Re: The QPL licence

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

> On Apr 26, 2004, at 16:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 
>> I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it.  Does anyone remember a
>> license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable
>> clauses?
> 
> The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause,
> which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern ---
> to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other
> software, for example.]

How about "you must not mention my name" clauses?  When interpreted
literally, they form an extremely strong prior restraint on speech, and I
thought we'd occasionally assumed that no court would be insane enough to
enforce them at that level.  (Enforced at the "you must not use my name as
an endorsement" level, they're fine.)  Of course, we do try to get license
issuers to correct such clauses, since they usually just want a
no-endorsements clause.

I guess if a clause is unenforcable *and* doesn't mean what the copyright
holder actually intended, we tend to consider it free.  But that's more
because the copyright holder didn't mean it than because it's
unenforceable.  (However, we don't tend to accept licenses where the
copyright holder doesn't mean it but we think it is enforceable, do we?)

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.