On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:02:52 -0700 Mark Reinhold wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:15:17 +0200
> > From: Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
>
> > On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:06:42 -0700 Mark Reinhold wrote:
> >> If you're content with security fixes being discussed in the FAQ then
> >> I'd like to leave the text of the notice as-is.
> >
> > I would personally prefer seeing this kind of issues clarified in the
> > trademark license text, rather than in a FAQ...
[...]
> We've generally found that leaving interpretive questions such as this to
> a related FAQ makes for licenses that are clearer and simpler in the long
> run.
As long as the license is clear enough and the FAQ is there just to
explain things to people who are not used to analyzing licenses, I
can agree.
But I don't think that this is the case, here.
> That was, e.g., our experience with the Distribution License for
> Java (DLJ) [1,2].
That was exactly one of the "features" I disliked in the DLJ.
See, for instance:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00274.html
As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
P.S.: please do not Cc: me, as long as debian-legal is in the loop:
I didn't ask to be Cc:ed.
--
http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html
New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp7hc3KqxttW.pgp
Description: PGP signature