[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


Scripsit Juhapekka Tolvanen <juhtolv@cc.jyu.fi>

> http://www.evvk.com/evvktvh.html

The claim that it is "completely legal" to insert a medium containing
the software into a living donkey will be false in many jurisdictions
due to animal cruelty laws.

It is probably a bug in the drafting that this claim talks about "a
software Product" rather than "the Product".

In general, the main example talks about inserting media containing
the _unmodified_ software into bodily orificies, and therefore is in
and of itself less convincing as to the DFSG-freedom status than the
author of the license may have intended.

It may be a lawyerbomb that the license claims that anybody "can" do
various things with the software. Does "can" refer to permission or
mere ability here?

Additionally, the language putting copying, distribution and
modification in parallel is open to a pineish sophistry attack,
but we do not normally care much about such until and unless they

Henning Makholm       "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
                 useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."

Reply to: