On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 22:59, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > >The wording of the clause is identical. Are you claiming that the > >differing location of it in the license alters the situations that it > >applies to? > > Absolutely. > > In the X11 license: > > "Permission is hereby granted.... provided that... and that... appear in > supporting documentation. > [Warranty Disclaimer] > [Problem Clause] > [Other Stuff]" > > Note that only the conditions in the "Permission is granted" sentence > are actually conditions on the permission grant. The "Problem Clause" > has a status equivalent to the warranty disclaimer; it's another statement. In the X license, what we all agree is a condition is also an assertoric statement: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." This is worded the same way as: "Except as contained in this notice, the name of [Org] shall not be used in advertising..." The X license also says permission is granted "subject to the following conditions" (note the plural); under your interpretation of the license, that's grammatically incorrect because there's only one condition. I think the wording of the license suggests that the bit after the warranty disclaimer is itself a condition (and for that matter, the warranty disclaimer itself is also). Legally extraneous conditions perhaps, but conditions nonetheless. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part