[Whatever MUA you're using (Eudora for windows?) breaks threads. Kindly consider using a MUA that adds In-Reply-To: and References: headers.] On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Colin Percival wrote: > People read licenses in strange ways. Nobody seems concerned by the > fact that paragraphs 2 and 3 cannot be satisfied simultaneously, yet > lots of people complain that paragraphs 3 and 4 cannot be satisfied > simultaneously. There are loads of problems with paragraphs 3 and 4, and paragraph 2 interacts with it in interesting ways. You're seeing a case where people are pointing out the most obvious problems which make a license non-free. I don't think anyone has done a complete job of it, because when we find a license term to be non-free, we don't need to go much further. [Finally, this license sure seems to be written by someone who is not an attorney or at least significantly experienced in the art of writing licenses. I really highly recommend against writing licences wherever possible.] > I don't think that's necessary. Licenses are interpreted by > "reasonable men"; No. Licenses are interpreted by judges and/or juries. > At one point, I considered adding a clause 4.5, "You may modify and > distribute ... the following conditions: a) You must be alive, b) You > must be dead", but I decided that would be a bit overly frivolous. Clauses like these may make the entire license null and void because the license itself doesn't have a atomicity clause[1]. Again, I strongly suggest working with an attorney experienced in license creation before writing a license like this or advocating that people license their software under such a license. (It's possible as well that some jurisdictions might interpret such advocating as legal advice... definetly not a good idea when an attorney wasn't involved in the drafting of the license.) > Why not? Are you suggesting that UCB might launch a trademark suit > over three letters? I think I'll accept that risk. While I doubt that UC Berkely would sue over something so minor, to falsely represent a license in this way so that it seems that BSD or UC Berkely condones its useage isn't particularly ethical. You, of course, are free to run whatever risks of litigation you feel like, but I don't recommend it. Just for the record, I concur that the license is not DFSG Free. Moreover, I strongly recommend against anyone using this license for anything that they are developing or at the very least consult with some form of legal representation before using this license for anything. Don Armstrong -- Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. -- Oscar Wilde http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature