On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:16:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:26:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > So, this license is specific to be used only as "part of a product or
> > > programm".
> > You're missing the key phrase on which Branden's argument (and mine)
> > is based on: 'developed by the user'
> >
> > This phrase read conservatively
>
> ...is not the author's intention, as indicated by second hand reports
> of clarifications ("BSD, but can't use the original literally") by
> the copyright holder, and the copyright holder's (lack of) response to
> copious reuse and redistribution.
[...]
> If anyone on -legal believes clarifications are necessary or would
> be helpful, please feel free to get them from Sun.
You ground your argument on "second hand reports of clarifications" in
the first quoted paragraph, but then expect debian-legal to furnish
first-hand clarifications?
Well, I haven't heard of any such clarification being made, so we're
down to the credibility of the claimants.
Who has asserted to you the existence of these "clarifications"? Have
these people any stake in the existence of such claims?
The Sun RPC fails the DFSG on its face. The burden of proof is on those
who claim it's been "clarified" to come up with evidence of such.
This is the converse of the old UWash Pine license issue, where UWash
took a license that was DFSG-free on its face and "interpreted" it in a
non-free way.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of
Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity.
branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpgtawLuGc5L.pgp
Description: PGP signature