Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On 2004-06-07 00:44:25 +0100 Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
[...] Although an interpretation of the clause with respect to US
copyright law says that the clause should only mean "we keep our
(which is a NOP),
An interpretation of the clause with respect to most forms of English
language says that it does not attempt to deny others their
copyrights. You have been told this by myself and BTS, at least.
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,
cannot do? *cough*EULA*cough*.
Of course there have been, but there doesn't seem to be such a thing
in that clause. In fact, assertion of copyright interest is fairly
common in debian, although not to that extent. Their lawyers must be
I'd rather a clarification be sought from the licensor, rather than us
finding out which way the licensor interprets their clause when
served with legal papers.
It is rare for the first one hears about copyright matters to be legal
papers. "Cease" letters usually come first.
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/