Re: Java3D license incompatible with DFSG?
* Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> [120915 11:47]:
> Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
>
> > I don't think we should rely on either interpretation; ambiguity in
> > copyright licenses is dangerous.
> >
> > My advice is to seek a better license statement from the copyright
> > holder which makes it clear what the clause means.
>
> In particular, if the clause actually doesn't refer to actions covered
> by copyright, or the copyright license, etc., then it is too confusing
> to have it in the copyright license text. It should be removed from
> that, and put in a more general README or some other document.
The clause is most likely part of "the following disclaimer", which the
license requests to be "retain"ed (together with the copyright notice
and the license text) in exchange for being granted permissions.
Insofar it makes sense that it is where it is.
I think it is clear enough what this license says that it is not a
problem unless the copyright owner claims otherwise.
What could be spelled out more rigorously is:
- that "licensed for use in [...] a nuclear facility" refers to
some government clearance and not to some copyright license.
Given that there is a list of conditions before, if this was
about permission by the copyright holder to use, the copyright holder
could just have added a "don't use in ..." condition.
Something starting with "You acknowledge" makes it quite clear those
are things you should know and not additional requirements for the
license.
- where the conditions end and where the disclaimer starts.
Given that two things get a special marker and three other paragraphs
look different, I'd say it is quite clear those are two conditions (source
distribution, binary distribution) and three disclaimers (you have no
permission to misuse the name of the copyright holder, there is no
warranty, not made for really dangerous stuff).
(But even if the "names [...] may [not] be used to endorse or promote"
and "You acknowledge" were conditions, it would not change much, as
one is not allowed to do the first anyway and as long as the second
is obviously true, there is no cost in acknowledging it).
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: