Branden Robinson wrote: > 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. I agree that such language should be strongly discouraged, and that the authors should be contacted and requested to remove the language, but I do not believe it should render the license non-DFSG-free unless there are in fact use restrictions in the license. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature