On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:49:11PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are > non-free? As a general rule, it's completely invalid, so you fall back to the default position of having no license. However, if it contains one of those clauses that says "If any clause is rendered invalid for whatever reason then the other clauses remain in force" then it's lawyer bait and could mean just about anything. There are likely some other specific cases where licenses remain partially valid, whatever that means. As usual, we can't afford to go there, and have to assume it's invalid. [I believe there is related precedent here, where a EULA was found to be invalid in a given jurisdiction and so its more onerous restrictions did not apply - leading to those annoying anti-termination clauses. But I can't remember when or where] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature