[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:43:27AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> I think that this captures why I, at least, am a bit uncomfortable with
> your analysis.  I haven't looked in any detail at the license, so I've
> mostly stayed out of this discussion.  But I do think that as a matter
> of method, the above is the wrong approach.
> If language is unclear we have two options:
> - Look only at the most restrictive interpretation
> - or, if that's not free, seek clarification.
> Judging by past experience, we can't always expect license authors to
> take what is to us the most reasonable interpretation.  If in fact they
> do, there should be no problem at all getting clarification.  But
> pending clarification, we must assume the worst.
> The principle at work here is that we have an obligation to our users,
> not to the copyright holders.  I realize that copyright holders are
> going to be frustrated with this approach because it may be hard for
> them to judge where d-l stands on a license at times.  For this reason
> it's worthwhile to work on improving communication with upstream
> licensors.  But that must take second place to our obligation to make
> sure that our users aren't surprised by un-free clauses in licenses.

Hear, hear.

Very well said.

G. Branden Robinson                |      Religion is excellent stuff for
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      keeping common people quiet.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Napoleon Bonaparte
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: