[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libreadline



On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 01:46:58PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 12:09:49AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think it's a very safe bet that the Regents of the University of
> > California abandoned the advertising clause because their lawyers
> > decided it was untenable.[2]  Huge institutions like that don't loosen
> > licensing terms out of charity.
> 
> On the other hand, lawyers don't drop clauses just because they are
> unenforcible :-)

Sadly, you have a point there.  The same goes for politicians and laws.

> One possibility is that they thought that defending the advertising clause
> might weaken their position on another issue.  Maybe they want to be able
> to argue against a similar clause in someone else's license.

Hmm, I wonder if the license change was part of the secret settlement
with AT&T?  Since the case was settled years previously, though, I guess
that's unlikely.  (The lawsuit was settled on 1994-02-04[1], and the
abandoment of the advertising clause did not happen until 1999-07-02[2].)

> Or maybe this license change was an actual case of a huge institution doing
> something sensible.  It does happen.

Okay, *now* you're getting way too optimistic for me.  :)

[1] http://ftp.openbsd.cz/pub/NetBSD/misc/release/misc/USL-lawsuit
[2] ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |          You live and learn.
Debian GNU/Linux                   |          Or you don't live long.
branden@debian.org                 |          -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpB2fcwUWMX2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: