Francesco Poli wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:09:41 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:Ben Finney wrote:Peter Saint-Andre <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:After some discussion and wordsmithing, we have consensus on the following wording (for which the "permissions" section is essentially a modified MIT license):This raises the question, then, why the exact MIT/X11 license terms were not used?That was discussed in the previous thread.Yeah, and I think we explained why our recommendation was to adopt the exact Expat/MIT license (or the exact X11/MIT license, if you prefer).
Yes, and I respectfully disagreed with you because I want the XMPP Standards Foundation to make it perfectly clear to the developers and service providers who implement and deploy the protocols specifications we define exactly what they can do with the specifications, in language they can understand, with no possible confusion on their part. That, to me, is more important than using the precise wording of the X11/MIT license.
The proposed license talks about a "Specification", which becomes a bit problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is not a "Specification" anymore. I could turn it into a poem, or into a summary description, or into a sci-fi novel, or into... But I'm repeating myself: as you yourself said, that was discussed in the previous thread. Nonetheless, the situation hasn't improved from this point of view...
Is the license free or not? That is the question.
Warranty This Specification is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, [...]A better title for this section would be "Disclaimer of warranty", or "No warranty", I think.
Agreed. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature