Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 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?
That can *always* be the case: just about any free license can be interpreted
in unusual ways that make them non-free; even the simple MIT license. This
is never an issue in and of itself, unless we have real reason to believe
that a license really is being interpreted in such a way (eg. UWash).
> 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.
That's what the issue really is. We might not know whether this is simply
a redundant "we retain copyright on things we have copyright on anyway",
or a strange attempt at copyright assignment.
(I say "might" because I don't really have a strong opinion on this.)