Olivier Mascia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > First, thanks for your time spent around these questions. [...]
Thanks for considering the responses. > College, as used here (probably very mistakenly in english), means an =20= > implied 'group', a 'collection' of multiple people. The idea is that =20 > 'Authors' is defined such it automatically includes all the persons =20 > (individuals, companies, other kind of legal / public / whatever =20 > bodies) who at least once contributed to IBPP. The idea is very =20 > simple, harder is to find the right minimalist words to express it. I would recommend 'group' but I am not sure that I understand the aim. [...] > Le 20 mars 06 =E0 03:39, MJ Ray a =E9crit : > > You'd be surprised. Some people print this stuff on t-shirts. Dropping > > that and "programming" would solve this. > > So that would become: > 2.1. Right to Use > To use (edit when required, compile and link) the IBPP source code as =20= > part of a larger work. Actually, I suggest 'To use (including edit when required, ...)...' and maybe 'another work' or 'a different work' instead of 'a larger work'. > >>>> * 3. Duties > >>>> > >>>> o 3.1. Duty to give modifications back to IBPP Authors [...] > If that gets dropped, there will obviously be some new duty to take =20 > its place. Something along the lines that if people modify the code =20 > or enhance it, they *cannot* misrepresent it as being the original =20 > IBPP code, and instead clearly state they have deliberately modified =20 > it. I suppose this would not be an issue for various definitions of =20 > free software. That would be good. I think this is quite common for free software licences: blame and fame where they are due. [Disclaimer] > > Why should it be capitalised? > > I really don't insist on it. (I don't care in fact). > It is just that so many licenses, contracts, legally binding texts do =20= > so... If you can find any legal basis for this, there are many people who would love to read it, because it looks like a lawyer lemming effect, all following each other blindly into the abyss. > I was always told that some points in legally binding texts were =20 > capitalized to make them easier to read, or at least easier to spot, =20 > so that people can't pretend they couldn't see it and read it. But =20 > you just offer the counter-argument... It seems so obvious to me that all-capitals is harder to read. Much of the time, we read partly by using the shapes of words and all-caps makes that more difficult. The problems of all-caps is mentioned in many style guides, such as http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/c.html#capitalization - if you deliberately make your warranty details hard to read, I think you may be reducing its effectiveness. > I wonder when a Court will agree to proceed on a claim that someone =20 > got injured because the use of some software *had* a license. ;-) I don't understand. I think your defence will be strengthened by the disclaimer, but it seems you are putting yourself at needless risk. [...] > Now it is very different for programs which happen to use IBPP code. =20 > What we are seeking is that Debian (or any other distribution) won't =20 > refuse program X or Y on the sole fact that the source code of that =20 > program X or Y has some files which comes from IBPP. While the source-demand requirement is there, I would object to the inclusion of programs X and Y if they contain files under the IBPP licence. (I am only advisory, not the decision-maker. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00120.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00009.html or http://www.fr.debian.org/legal/licenses/ for more about how we fit in.) > To the best of my knowledge, someone who want to publish a work under > the GPL license can do so, IBPP clearly gives them the right to use > IBPP. IBPP does not want to be concerned in any way by whatever > license those programs (using IBPP) are distributed under, so does > not want to pollute the licensing of the larger work [...] The licence of IBPP appears to contain restrictions not present in the GPL, so I'm not sure that your licence achieves this. A work combining both GPL'd and IBPP-licensed source code may not be distributable, because one cannot simultaneously satisfy the source-demand clause and the GPL's no further restrictions clause. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]