On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 04:05:17AM -0500, Filipus Klutiero wrote: > > But in any case, the following sentence is what matters:
> > Notwithstanding the foregoing, the authors grant the U.S. Government and > > others acting in its behalf permission to use and distribute the software > > in accordance with the terms specified in this license. > > IOW, in *spite* of citing this government regulation, permission is granted > > to use and distribute the software *under the normal license*. > This is also what I read. Do you agree that given the content of this > government regulation, the license is/looks conflicting? No; the "notwithstanding" clause supersedes the foregoing. > > Again, this is an effort to keep the government from claiming *more* rights > > over the software than what's permitted by the usual license, not to > > prevent the government from exercising rights that are granted to everyone > > else. > To make it clear, I believed you when you first stated this. But re-reading > the license, it's still not how I interpret what's written. Well, there's room for greater clarity here; there usually is with license texts. If you feel strongly about this wording needing to be improved, you can reopen the bug at a lower severity, but I wouldn't give you very good odds of getting the license changed given that citing government regs in your license is usually a good indication of an institutional mentality that loves boilerplate. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
