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

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 07:12:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > 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.)

I'd upgrade "might" to "do".  There have been (by my count) at least three
people in this thread who have said "why are they trying to steal other
copyrights?".  Although an interpretation of the clause with respect to US
copyright law says that the clause should only mean "we keep our copyrights"
(which is a NOP), has there never been a case where a licensor has attempted
to put things into a licence which, by a strict reading of the law, they
cannot do?  *cough*EULA*cough*.

I'd rather a clarification be sought from the licensor, rather than us
finding out which way the licensor interprets their clause when someone gets
served with legal papers.

- Matt

Reply to: