Re: BSD Protection License
On 2003-10-23, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Please add your clarifications to your licence text. Assertions here
> may not be taken into consideration. I'm not sure what current opinion
> is about legal validity of unsigned emails to a public list.
Hmm? debian-legal has frequently accepted unsigned e-mails as
clarifications of license texts.
I also don't think the original license was at all ambiguous in the
clause 3 vs. clause 4 issue: such a license is a grant of permission,
and if I grant you permission to do X if Y, and also grant permission
to do X if Z, then if you do either Y or Z, then you can do X. If one
wanted to tie the two clauses together, then you'd have to add some
explicit language linking the two clauses.
For instance, take the GPL: Clause 1 grants permission to distribute
verbatim copies, which is obviously not free enough for Debian; it's
only Clause 3 that grants you permission to distribute modified
copies. The situation seems analogous.
I think the license is obnoxious and not to be encouraged [perhaps by
keeping it out of Debian], but I don't yet see any reason it's not