Re: BSD license + should
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 3:40 AM Michael Banck wrote:
> (please CC me on replies)
Done.
> |4. Every use of
I'm not sure copyright restricts mere use of software so this clause
might be unenforceable?
> |should acknowledge the following publication:
It sounds like license drafters should not use the word "should"
because of its legal ambiguity :)
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/should
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/
https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/shall/
> I am wondering whether this is DFSG-free as this fourth clause is a
> should, not a must (and it is good academic practise to cite anyway)?
It all rests on the interpretation of "should". I lean towards
interpreting should as optional but I lean towards treating ambiguity
as non-free :)
> If not, can you suggest a rephrasing of this clause that would make it
> DFSG-free, but be similar in spirit (i.e. nudge the user to cite the
> package if they publish results based on its use)?
No matter what the DFSG status is, I would suggest rewording and
moving the clause to the software description or documentation, simply
because people using the software aren't necessarily likely to be
reading the license, especially users of redistributors like Debian.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: