[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: W3 software license



On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 08:57:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > The license looks OK to me, with the possible exception that it says
> > "obtaining, using and/or copying this work" implies acceptance of the
> > license.
> 
> That isn't a problem in and of itself; it often indicates the presence
> of non-free usage restriction terms, but no such terms appear to be
> present in this license.

I disagree.  I think it sets a bad precedent to wave such language into a
list of licenses we accept as DFSG-free without at least asking the
upstream authors to remove this wording.

The exclusive rights granted to authors and their transferees under
copyright law attach regardless of the "acceptance" of those terms by third
parties.  Witness the fact that one can be sued for copyright infringement
even if one has never dealt with, or even heard of, the person or
corporation who holds a given copyright.

A license is a license, not a contract.

IMO it would be best to at least contact the upstream authors and make this
request.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |       Our ignorance is God; what we
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       know is science.
branden@debian.org                 |       -- Robert Green Ingersoll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: