Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 04:52:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >software, and I think it's the burden of people who actually care
> >the software to do the legwork to ensure that it's free.
> Sure, but I can't see why they shouldn't assert their (non-exclusive)
> copyright interest in derived works.
No reason. But that isn't necessarily what the clause in question says. It
is ambiguous; it could be interpreted in one of several ways. One of which
is OK, and another which is very not-OK.
We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence in
common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give any
solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case? We have a licence
which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of
us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it. Why do you
have such a problem with that?
And for the record, although I have no interest in or knowledge of this
package, I would be willing to contact upstream about this matter if the
maintainer and other better-qualified parties are unable or unwilling to do