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