On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 08:44:30PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > > 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. > > What about the ones that say "You must do one of these", giving a > bunch of possibly incompatible options? Sounds pretty straightforward to me, but it kinda depends on the options. We'd pretty much have to see it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature