On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:28:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:17:14PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > > The origionally posted license seemed to imply that clauses 3 and 4 were > > alternatives, and you only had to meet one of them; clause 3 appeared to > > more or less be a BSD advertising clause (cross-reference the 'flowc' > > licensing discussion...) > > > > If it's free, then wouldn't that make the license free (by not exercising > > option 4 at all, making it irrelevant)? I agree that trying to invoke > > option 4 wouldn't work. > > You have to satisfy both #3 and #4: you have to do 3 *as well as* one of 4a, > 4b or 4c. > > Maybe you read #4 as part of "Alternatively ...". The "alternatively" is > part of #3, and unrelated to #4. I was, indeed, reading it as making #3 and #4 alternatives. Apparently I'm going blind (or stupid). Anyway. If they really must both be met, then I agree; it is definitely non-free. -- Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`. : :' : `. `' `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature