Re: The QPL licence

[Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:30:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> The only thing I can think of is the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause, 
> which seems to be widely thought --- for reasons no one can discern --- 
> to be unenforceable. [It'd be non-free because it contaminates other 
> software, for example.]

It does seem beyond basic copyright, and in EULA/contract territory.  After
all, copyright law doesn't prohibit mentioning features and use of copyrighted
material in advertising material (as far as I know), which BSD#4 tries to
limit.

I wonder: if a court finds that a condition was unenforcable, and lacking a
clause like GPL#7, would the individual clause or the entire license be
considered invalid?  If the latter, licenses with unenforcable clauses should
probably be considered non-free, as the license could be terminated as a
result.

-- 
Glenn Maynard