Re: Why we must ship at least some licenses (was: Manoj, ...

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> Phil writes:
> > Especially since there is really no possibility of having DFSG free
> > license, since any DFSG license would be self-referential and I'm not
> > convinced any of the legal profession are going to put up with that sort
> > of thing.
> 
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |                                                                          |
> |                         The Hasler Public License                        |
> |                                                                          |
> |     You may distribute, in whole or in part, modified or verbatim,       |
> |     copies of the program to which this copyright license is             |
> |     attached as long as you do not refer to modified or partial          |
> |     copies by the same name as the original.  You may also distribute,   |
> |     in whole or in part, modified or verbatim, copies of this license    |
> |     subject to the same condition.                                       |
> |                                                                          |
>  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I fail to see any reason why the above license would be either
> unenforceable or a bafflement to the legal profession.

I think the reason is that the licence for a work is not considered to be 
part of the work itself (IANAL so I could be wrong)

If I'm right, then the second sentence above is the license for the licence 
(i.e. the first sentence above), and does not apply to itself.

Could someone that can get the advice of a IP lawyer check this out please.

Cheers, Phil.