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

Re: python-imaging

Greg Harris <glharris@panix.com> writes:

> (2) A fair reading of the other language is that the grant of the
> license does not require payment of a fee by the licensee.

That would be so if the original wording of the terms of X11 were

    Permission to [foo] for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,

But that wording is *not* what has been used for ‘python-imaging’.
Instead, the wording is:

    Permission to [foo] for any purpose and without fee is hereby

which is clearly applying *both* of “for any purpose and without fee”
to “[foo]”, that is, the actions permitted.

> ("Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
> its associated documentation for any purpose and without fee is
> hereby granted.") Indeed, any other reading of that sentence is what
> lawyers would refer to as "crabbed"; you are forcing an issue where
> there is none.

I admit that risk is always present and deserves consideration, but I
can't agree with you in this instance. The interpretation I've made,
of the actual wording in the license terms, seems the most

> Reducing license proliferation is a fine thing and getting the
> copyright owners to adopt one of the more standard forms would
> reduce the transaction costs of discussions like these, but I don't
> see anything here that should trigger concerns for including the
> software.

Given the above, I maintain that the terms as written make the work
non-free (by failing DFSG§6).

It seems likely that the copyright holder *intends* to license under
the usual terms. But different terms were instead chosen, and they
have a different effect.

 \      “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his |
  `\                             enemy from oppression.” —Thomas Paine |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: