On Wed, 21 May 2003, Nick Phillips wrote: > Now what are you going to do with the overriding requirement that you > can't do baz? Let's see... > > The result looks EXACTLY like: > > Copyright 2003 Joe Blow. > > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > > 1) You can do foo. > 2) You can do bar. > 3) Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions > on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not > responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. > > > END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS Can you quote caselaw that demonstrates this to be the case? As far as I can remember, I've never heard of such a license with additional riders being litigated. [But then again, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in licenses.] I hope we can agree that the fact that such a license contains an internal contradiction is open to interpretation, and litigation (most likely) would have to ensue with an as of yet undetermined outcome. The acceptance of licenses into Debian with dubious legality and/or grants of permision is not something that we should coutenance lightly. [I know that if such a license were to cross my desk for a project that I was doing any serious work on, I would require clarification from legal counsel and most likely they would want to see some sort of clarification from the author as well.] Don Armstrong -- "There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself." -- Bach http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpFhNBhcPrQX.pgp
Description: PGP signature