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

Re: FWD: Analog licence violates DFSG

On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:10:52PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> This has always been a stone in my craw: why should a "keep it
> legal" clause make it non DFSG free?

"Keep it legal" is not the clause being discussed.  Instead, it's

"1.Any action which is illegal under international or local law is
forbidden by this license. Any such action is the sole responsibility
of the person committing the action."

Now, the question is: is this clause meaningless, or is it not?

If it doesn't really mean anything, it should just be taken out
of the license.  Meaningless verbiage doesn't help anyone.

But I don't think we are ever safe to assume that the language of
a copyright license is meaningless.  So that means we need to look
at the cases where it has meaning.

The cases where this clause would have meaning are cases where
jurisprudence is ambiguous.  Where local or international laws
are acknowledged to exist, but would not ordinarily apply.


Reply to: