On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:18:44PM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Section 4a) allows the author to forbid reference to the user. Section > 4b) requires authorship credit. > > If the author uses the revocation clause, it's not explicitly stated > that the licensee is absolved of the requirements in 4b). In other > words: > > ~Attribution -> ~Distribution > RevocationRequest -> ~Attribution > Thus, > RevocationRequest -> ~Distribution > > There are some hedges in 4b) -- the author's name only has to be give > "if supplied". But it's not explicit, and I think having a licensor able > to effectively revoke the license at will would make it non-free. Revokable licenses, for any reason other than non-compliance, are indeed non-free. It does sound rather fucked up, and might be revokable. Lawyer-bait though. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature