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

Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ

"George Danchev" <danchev@spnet.net> wrote in message [🔎] 200606061550.16630.danchev@spnet.net">news:[🔎] 200606061550.16630.danchev@spnet.net...
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 07:58, Tom Marble wrote:
We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
which is publicly available at [5].  The preamble to the FAQ
has been specifically re-written to clarify the relationship
between the FAQ and the license itself.

That statement as written could be very useful. It likely could be enforced at least at
the level of a verbal cotract/agreement. Thus it seems ok to accept
the statements in the FAQ to be binding normal english clairifactions to the licence.

I would suggest clarifications like "and we haven't made a blatant
typographical error" to be removed from the FAQ. This sort of "insurance"
would make people think twice what Sun interprets as "blatant typos..." and why it is actually put there, since the FAQ must have been reviewed by a team
of responsible people.

Well, that is in case a line says "can" while it clearly meant "can't", or other similar positions. So basically: don't depend on the meaning of a signle sentence, unless the sourrounding sentances make it clear that the sentence as written is what is intended.

Although I appreciate your efforts improving the FAQ, it is the license itself
which must be improved. License that needs a large FAQ to clarify its
contents is not a good one ;-)

On the other hand, a FAQ can be useful to allow the company to clarify poor wording in a licence,
without needing to go trough the hastle of relicencing.


Reply to: