On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:48:40AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Op di 14-10-2003, om 07:17 schreef Branden Robinson: > > Well, it turns out to be irrelevant as the upstream copyright holders > > seem disinclined to do anything at all about the licensing at present. > > "If you can help us with setting up a license which fulfils our > intention and at the same time has no unclear points, you are welcome to > provide suggestions." > > Not that I think I'm experienced enough to provide suggestions, but > can't we at least try? It's just that I think "setting up a license which fulfils our intention and at the same time has no unclear points" is either a) impossible or b) will be very time-consuming. They did indicate that time was a factor for them. I'm not sure there exists a license with "no unclear points" if sufficient hair-splittling is brought to bear. We've even argued over whether it's *possible* to put something into the public domain in various jursdictions, so even the "null license" is unclear. (More precisely, I guess the "null license" is "All rights reserved.", but the meaning of *that* is a matter of constant debate as well.) -- G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand firstname.lastname@example.org | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers.
Description: Digital signature