Re: definition of "use"
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 16:51 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> That's fine, but as you probably do realize, the word "use" is too
> wide and too unspecific. Having a license that doesn't state
> specifically what rights are or aren't granted is due to bring
I agree, in part. Primarily, the latter part. A recent(well, a month
ago) example being some of the discussions that transpired on -legal and
-devel regarding the license.
> If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of
> owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind
> of hard to 'own'), then you should say that.
If the definition holds true, I did just that. However, your point is
<As far as ownership is concerned, I see someone else already responded
to that point.>
> So, my suggestion is: rephrase the license to convey to every person
> the meaning you want it to convey. Then the problem ends.
I have been thinking about this. Actually, I even thought about it
before submitting the license to the OSI, but I figured I'd give 'use' a
test and see who said what. Little or nothing was said. Although, the
recent update I submitted did invoke a response with a concern of
clarity, but that was only one mention, so there was not much cause for
alarm until I ran into these threads.
Anyways, I do plan to rephrase the license. It is better to be safe than
It will mostly expand the first instance of 'use' to the previously
cited definition. I think I will post it to debian-legal, as well as
license-discuss, looking for criticisms.
Regards, James William Pye