Thomas Roessler wrote:
> It's fine to point out the lack of an enforceable binding on a
> technical level, but I don't think this spec is the place to
> discuss the legal implications that this might have.
If the spec does not make statements concerning the intended legal
implications of a feature which clearly addresses legal issues, the result
will almost inevitably be wide-spread misunderstanding of the implications
of using the feature. The mere act of going to the trouble of specifying the
license link indicates that the authors expect that there will be some
implication of having used the feature. The question that many readers will
have is: "What are the intended implications?" Leaving the answer to guess
work is not useful, I think.
Given the unsettled and potentially dynamic state of the law in this
area, I certainly agree that the spec should not make pronouncements
concerning what the law is in this case. But I don't see any valid argument
against making statements of intent that may, or may not, be in conflict
with the law as it is or may one day be.
The authors of the specification have, I think, not only good reason
to state their intention but an obligation to do so. Warning implementers
that the use of the license link may not, in at least some situations and in
some legal systems, create a legally enforceable binding is the right thing
to do.
bob wyman
