On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:13:58 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Friday 01 January 2010 2:57:18 pm Francesco Poli wrote: > > > /* ============================================================ > > > > > > Copyright (c) 2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. > > > > > > Redistribution and use of this material is permitted under the following > > > conditions: > > > > I cannot find any permission to modify or distribute modified versions > > of the file. > > This seems to fail DFSG#3. > > What?! The grant is /right/ there... "Redistribution and use of this > material is permitted" provided the following criteria are met, and > then it lists the criteria. I suppose it could be its own little bullet > point, but that sure seems explicit to me. As has already been pointed out by Steve Langasek, redistribution and use does not clearly cover modification and redistribution of modified versions, which is what I was talking about. > That you failed to see that as a grant really calls into question the > neutrality of the rest of your license evaluation. Neutrality? We are not on Wikipedia, here! I clearly stated that I was going to express my own personal opinion... [...] > > This takes away a right I would have in the absence of any license. > > That is to say, in order to get the permission to redistribute or use, > > I must surrender my right to commence or participate in any legal > > action related to this work. > > I see this as a fee required for getting the permission to > > redistribute: the presence of such a fee makes the work fail DFSG#1. > > The GPL takes away all sorts of rights... this can't possible be what > DFSG #1 is intended on prohibiting. Which rights (that I would have in the absence of any license) does the GPL take away? [...] > > This clause, instead, seems to say that, if any limitation of liability > > is unenforceable, then, boom!, the whole grant of permission is void. > > This could discriminate against people living in jurisdictions where > > local law forbids too extreme limitations of liability. > > If this is the case, then it fails DFSG#5. > > This continues to be a laughable argument. The GPL discriminates against > countries who jail anyone who uses software licensed under the GPL. > Is that discrimination? I don't think so: in your example, that law is *specifically* designed to attack the GPL, whatever the GPL text may say. As a consequence, the discrimination is not caused by the GPL, but by the law-makers. [...] > Is this clause really any different than "you aren't allowed to do > anything illegal with this software?" Steve Langasek has already explained that such a clause is equally non-free. > > > [...] > > > This license forms the entire agreement regarding the subject matter > > > hereof and > > > supersedes all proposals and prior discussions and writings between the > > > parties > > > with respect thereto. > > > > It really seems that no other grant of permission may be considered > > valid... > > How do you reach that conclusion?! Since "this license [...] supersedes all proposals and prior discussions and writings [...]", it seems that I cannot consider any other *prior* grant of permission as valid. Maybe *later* grants of permission can be valid and I should have been less fast in generalizing my sentence to *any* other grant... If this is actually your objection, then point taken. > > > > This license does not affect any ownership, > > > rights, title, > > > or interest in, or relating to, this material. > > > > I think that this means that, if I hold some right (e.g.: copyright) > > on a part of the work, then I am not constrained by the license, for > > that part of the work. > > This seems to be superfluous to say. > > The license is just being very clear that the license in now way > diminishes the ownership rights of AMD in the underlying code. Hardly > superfluous if you are AMD. I think it is superfluous, since no part of the license seems to do things like transfers of copyright ownerships or such. Hence, it looks like a clause that makes it very clear what is already rather clear: in this sense, I think it is superfluous. I may be wrong, of course. The clause seems to be harmless, anyway. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpaoh1gzzasn.pgp
Description: PGP signature