Re: Bug#296369: ITP: spin -- Powerfull model checking and softwareverification tool
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:25:37PM -0700, OSS wrote:
Maybe I should have been clearer, I was following a sublicence chain. I
don't see how a change to Lucent's liscense impacted the one already
granted to you, which then could be granted to me (in the abscence of a
term similar to IBM's CPL after the fact change which I didn't see).
Following this chain, if it did I guess I'd just have to mail CDs rather
than allow downloads :-)
That's the part I mentioned not being clear: on one hand, they say I can
sublicense, and on the other, they say that all copies downloaded after a
license revision are under the new license. Which is it? (I don't know.)
Maybe I'm more aggressive in my interpretation - following the guidance
of a legal adviser who told me a licence grant is unlikely to be further
restricted by reference to the courts, grab the broad terms and hold on.
As he said, the Judge knows the licensor had the opportunity to write
down exactly what they were granting.
As such, I see a grant to sublicense as clear. Future licences are
irrelevant to my licence - mine has an ability to sublicense and is
BTW, thanks for the heat over the email display address. There were a
pair of assumptions in-house: 1) I knew how to configure my email
clients and 2) my email clients had been configured for me. I think
everything is now straightened out (although "reply" still goes to the
poster not the list). I've used too many systems where clients were
"happy" their accounts were Q14cqX@subloc.loc.server.dept.moonphase, so
odd display names don't register.