Re: Cypherpunks anti-License
Scripsit Nic Suzor <nic@hades.cable.nu>
> However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
> help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
> modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted.
Yes, but it *also* states that a distributor can chose whatever
license he wishes for his distribution.
I think we should treat the "anti-license" as a statement of the terms
on which the Debian maintainer acquired the code. As such, they should
be reproduced in extenso in the copyright file.
The maintainer may wish to explain in the copyright file that Debian
does not consider itself bound by the upstream author's claims about
what "distributors" will or won't do. Personally I still don't think
it is necessary, but it wouldn't hurt either.
> It's not hard to envisage a situation where Debian (or the direct
> distributors) need to enforce their trademarks, or commence a
> passing off action,
In that case our grievance would be unrelated to the fact that the
defendant got the software through Debian, and therefore the license
terms (or lack of same) of our redistribution would be immaterial to
the case.
It would be really hard for the defendant to argue that text which we
reproduce verbatim as evidence of the original author's intent should
be taken as a binding promise from *us*, applicable even in situations
that have nothing to do with our distributing the software, simply
because we have reproduced the text.
--
Henning Makholm "Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest
explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it."
Reply to: