Re: CMU LTI Licence
Thanks, it would really help :)
Best,
Fran
El dv 22 de 01 de 2010 a les 17:59 -0500, en/na Robert Frederking va
escriure:
> I'll look into whether I can get the 5th clause dropped, but can't
> promise yet.
>
> Bob
>
> Francis Tyers wrote:
> > I'm copying both Robert and the debian-legal list with this.
> >
> > Best regards to both,
> >
> > Fran
> >
> > El ds 23 de 01 de 2010 a les 09:29 +1100, en/na Ben Finney va escriure:
> >
> > > Francis Tyers <ftyers@prompsit.com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Here is a reply from Robert Frederking at CMU.
> > > >
> > > Thank you for getting this direct communication.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:32:29 -0500
> > > > From: Robert Frederking <ref@cs.cmu.edu>
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a lawyer, but let me start by stating that out intent was
> > > > simply that re-use included acknowledgement. This was not intended to
> > > > be a splash-screen on every start-up, or making the software pronounce
> > > > our names at the start of every sentence. :-) It only has to be
> > > > "clearly visible" in anyone's source files.
> > > >
> > > Would it be possible to simply drop that clause altogether? Its intent,
> > > as stated above, seems to be completely covered by existing clauses in
> > > the license, and worded as it is currently it's dangerously vague and
> > > over-reaching the stated intent.
> > >
> > >
> > > > We aren't interested in suing people; we are a non-profit research
> > > > organization. But like the Regents in California, we have a
> > > > responsibility to our sponsors that appropriate credit is given for
> > > > our work. So this is intended to be like the old BSD advertising
> > > > clause, which is generally considered to be clear from a legal point
> > > > of view.
> > > >
> > > These assurances are good, but don't have much legal weight compared to
> > > the actual license wording. Leaving the wording as-is makes recipients
> > > open to the exploitation of the vague wording by a hypothetical future
> > > administration with less friendly intent.
> > >
> > > This clause (IMO) fails the colourfully named “Tentacles of Evil” test
> > > <URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil>.
> > > That it seems to be redundant with other clauses for the intent stated
> > > above would suggest the best solution is simply to drop that clause
> > > altogether from the license terms.
> > >
> > > An alternative solution to this would be to dual-license the work,
> > > granting the recipient the choice of the terms of this license or
> > > another widely-known free-software license, such as the GNU GPL or the
> > > Expat license <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>.
> > >
> > > --
> > > \ “Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas |
> > > `\ are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.” |
> > > _o__) —Howard Aiken |
> > > Ben Finney
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Reply to: