Re: Licence query
Stephen Gran <email@example.com> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said:
>> Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said:
>> >> There is one thing about that license that strikes me as slightly odd.
>> >> Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
>> >> including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
>> >> freely, subject to the following restrictions:
>> >> In the above grant of permissions, I see no explicit grant to
>> >> distribute modified versions. It is fairly obvious from the remainder
>> >> of the license that such permission was intended, but it should still
>> >> be explicitly mentioned.
>> > "Permission is granted to ... alter it and redistribute it freely" seems
>> > like it does just that?
>> The first "it" is clearly referring to the unmodified source. The
>> second "it" has no other noun to refer to, so must also be referring
>> to the unmodified source. Had the text said something like "and
>> redistribute it freely, with or without modification", all would be
>> much clearer. The BSD license uses this precise phrase.
>> One can never be too careful with legal language.
> One can also try to be slightly sensible.
Try telling that to the lawyers.
> English is an inexact language at the best of times. In this
> context, the meaning is clear enough - it's a logical and operation.
> Of course it's possible that some legalistic moron could find a way
> to argue that the intent of the license is the opposite of what it
> apparently says, but I doubt it will stand up in any court that
Even the Eastern District Court of Texas?