On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 04:20:02AM -0600, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: > 1. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has got me wondering if we really > should specify that we want to combine > > copying, modification, distribution, sale > > into any arbitrary combination (e.g., copying+modification, > sale+distribution, copying+modification+distribution+sale). After all, > if the UWash lawyers were right about how clauses like these are > understood and we need to clarify modification+distribution, why do we > not want clear specification on any other desirable combination of these > actions?
The FSF response about this, I believe, wasn't that this is necessarily the actual court position of a naive reading of "x, y, or z"; but rather that it's UW's reading (to get out of having previously made the software free) and that it's wise to heed copyright holders' interpretations of their licenses, even if they're strange. However, it seems that "x, y, and/or z" should close the loophole. I wonder if someone would try to interpret that as saying "you must do all of them or exactly one". :) -- Glenn Maynard
