Re: Cypherpunks anti-License

[Nic Suzor <nic@hades.cable.nu>]

(excuse the duplication - I forgot to reply to the list.)

* Henning Makholm (henning@makholm.net) wrote:
> Scripsit Nic Suzor <nic@hades.cable.nu>
> 
> > However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or
> > help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use,
> > modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted.
> 
> Yes, but it *also* states that a distributor can chose whatever
> license he wishes for his distribution.
> 
> I think we should treat the "anti-license" as a statement of the terms
> on which the Debian maintainer acquired the code. As such, they should
> be reproduced in extenso in the copyright file.

I agree. I just feel that it needs to be clear that the package is not
distributed on the same terms, and that Debian is not providing the same
warranties against litigation. I don't think that we need an express
explanation to that effect, but simply delimit the CPL from a statement
that the package is in the public domain in the copyright file. 

> It would be really hard for the defendant to argue that text which we
> reproduce verbatim as evidence of the original author's intent should
> be taken as a binding promise from *us*, applicable even in situations
> that have nothing to do with our distributing the software, simply
> because we have reproduced the text.

Again, I agree - I was proceeding on the assumption that the package
would be distributed under the CPL (only), and not that it would simply
be included in the copyright notice.


Regards,


Nic Suzor
nic@hades.cable.nu