Re: Open Software License v2.1
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 12:02:49PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Word games. "If you license something then you lose the ability to sue
> people for acting in the manner you licensed them to do". Don't waste
> my time; you know full well that's irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant?
If "agreement not to sue" represents a subset of the
consequences of "granting a license", how can "agreement not
to sue" be non-free when "granting a license" is free?
[I'll grant that there might be some reason why "agreement not
to sue" is non-free, but I've not seen those reasons described
yet, and I see nothing to make me believe that what you're
claiming is word games is at all irrelevant.]
By the way, "word games" which are misleading can be dealt
with by pointing out how they're misleading. And, "word
games" which are illogical can be dealt with by pointing out
how they are illogical. That leaves "word games" which are
neither misleading nor ilogical... but...
Claiming that a relevant point is irrelevant is an example of
"misleading". Indicating that a relevant point is a waste
of your time seems illogical -- it would be better to just
drop out of the discussion if that were really the case.
--
Raul
Reply to: