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

Re: Distributability of Ruby's PDF::Writer

On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 01:00:08AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Wait: the content and output of these programs is here licensed
> under the terms of CC-by-nc-sa-v2.0 (which is utterly non-free).
> What does this mean? Does "the content" mean the programs
> themselves? Or something else (in that case, where is the permission
> to distribute the demo programs?)?

It seems pretty clear that "the content of these programs" means the
programs themselves. 

> This license grant is indeed unclear and ambiguous. What does
> "without charge" mean? Is it something like "you have permission to
> use, copy, and distribute but not to charge your recipients"? Or is
> it "you have permission to use, copy, and distribute and you do not
> have to pay us for this permission"? My (non English native speaker)
> reading fails to reach a conclusion: I am *not* sure that one of the
> two interpretations can be considered as obviously impossible.

As I said in my earlier message, while the drafting is not good and a
clarification from Adobe would be welcome, even in the absence of such
a clarification the latter interpretation ("you do not have to pay
us") is far, far more likely to apply than the former ("you cannot
charge other people").

> As I said above, the AFM licensing seems unclear to me. A
> clarification (or relicensing) should be sought from Adobe Systems.

As stated above, that would be good, but may be a counsel of
perfection. Even in the absence of a clarification, in my view the
existing wording can be relied upon. If I were advising a client, in
fact, I'd say "don't ask Adobe, just rely on what they've said in the
licence", to avoid giving Adobe the opportunity to claim they meant
the former interpretation, thus muddying the waters even further.



Reply to: