On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 16:51 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > That's fine, but as you probably do realize, the word "use" is too > wide and too unspecific. Having a license that doesn't state > specifically what rights are or aren't granted is due to bring > misunderstandings.
I agree, in part. Primarily, the latter part. A recent(well, a month ago) example being some of the discussions that transpired on -legal and -devel regarding the license. > If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of > owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind > of hard to 'own'), then you should say that. If the definition holds true, I did just that. However, your point is taken. <As far as ownership is concerned, I see someone else already responded to that point.> > So, my suggestion is: rephrase the license to convey to every person > the meaning you want it to convey. Then the problem ends. I have been thinking about this. Actually, I even thought about it before submitting the license to the OSI, but I figured I'd give 'use' a test and see who said what. Little or nothing was said. Although, the recent update I submitted did invoke a response with a concern of clarity, but that was only one mention, so there was not much cause for alarm until I ran into these threads. Anyways, I do plan to rephrase the license. It is better to be safe than sorry. It will mostly expand the first instance of 'use' to the previously cited definition. I think I will post it to debian-legal, as well as license-discuss, looking for criticisms. -- Regards, James William Pye -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]