Greg Harris <email@example.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
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 |