Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may
be invalid. In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
all. So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
Why? What form should such a clarification request take? "Are you a
gibbering fool who interprets the licence in an obscure,
counter-intuitive, absurd manner that is impossible in any
jurisdiction we've heard about yet?" seems the appropriate form to me,
but is hardly diplomatic.
We should seek this clarification from all holders of copyrights
affecting debian. Any of them might interpret their licence in an
invalid way by redefining the words.
Seriously, was there ever been a successful claim of copyright
assignment on the basis of one of these clauses?
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/