"retard" <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote in message news:hrcokt$lk...@digitalmars.com... > Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:39:55 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> Seriously, were they *trying* to prevent people from understanding it? >> If so, I don't think they could have done a better job. (At least not >> without hiring the FSF's "Let's do everything we can to enure our >> profession is needed as much as possible" lawyers.) > > The rationale behind license text is to make it enforceable. If a lawyer > cannot protect the author against infringement due to problems in the > license text, the license is basically useless. >
I'm seeing some vague references to zlib being unenforceable, but I've yet to see anything remotely substantial to back it up. Or even an unsubstantiated-but-direct claim for that matter. I have no way to be remotely sure your argument here isn't a strawman WRT zlib. > If you have problems reading the text, some authorities such as the > Creative Commons provide shiny graphical interfaces to the license. I never touch "simplified" explanations. The actual text of the license itself *is* the legal document. That other stuff...isn't. If push came to shove, how can I sensibly assume that a court would place precedence on the unofficial simplified version over the actual license itself? I can't, so the simplified versions are useless to me. > Of > course, I'm sure no one will complain if you release all your work under > a very liberal license or don't limit the use in any way. It's always a > pleasure to steal good work. "What's yours is mine, what's mine isn't > yours" - that's how the communism worked. Why stop at communism? Let's just invoke Godwin's law outright. That'll prove a point. "You're argument is like Nazism." There. That makes my argument the winning one now, right? ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
