Re: BSD Protection License
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote:
[Whatever MUA you're using (Eudora for windows?) breaks threads.
Kindly consider using a MUA that adds In-Reply-To: and References:
My MUA is fine; the thread was broken by the fact that I was replied to
an email Adam sent me, and I CCed my reply to debian-legal.
This email might break the thread again -- because I'm replying to an
email which wasn't sent to me, by copying and pasting out of the list archives.
> I don't think that's necessary. Licenses are interpreted by
> "reasonable men";
No. Licenses are interpreted by judges and/or juries.
Judges and/or juries, who are assumed to be reasonable. I don't see
that there is any confusion inherent in a license which states "You may do
X if Y. You may do X if Z"; but even if there was confusion, it is to be
interpreted in a manner which makes sense.
> 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.
Footnote parse error: Footnote not found.
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.
I'm not advocating anything.
>Just for the record, I concur that the license is not DFSG Free.
For the record, can you tell me specifically which parts of the DFSG are
not satisfied by this license?