Ceki Gülcü wrote:
2) Good faith but cautious interpretationI happen to work for a large corporation which has an annoying tendency to err towards the cautious side when making such interpretations.
In this case, someone is worried that the license applies to the
license file itself but not to other files. Thus, he or she decides
not use our software for fear of violating copyright law. Isn't this a
bit farfetched? Couldn't we address this concern in the license FAQ?
Judgement calls like this are always relative. It certainly is possible that someone caught in a situation where they are required to make a cautious interpretation might feel less than charitably inclined towards the citizens who made choices against the recommended practices of their community, particularly when they find such choices making their life more difficult.Could we say referring to the license 1.1 is not recommended practice but doing so does NOT make you a bad citizen?
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
