> in pseudocode > > clause 4 > > if (haveNoPermissionToUseterm("pronoic"))) { > if (useterm("pronoic")) { > noProblem(); > } else { > notInTheSpiritOfIt(); > } > } else { > noProblem(); > }
Look, if you have no permission to use the term "pronoic" then you may not legally use it. You can't end up at the first "noProblem()" statement, because you have already asserted you don't have permission to use the term. I dislike pseudo code analogies when it comes to law and licenses. (You understand Godel's proofs, so I don't have to tell you why.) I don't think you have pseudocoded version 1.2 either. I don't think version 1.2 has clarified much, and although the wording problems are different, there are still problems. Courts don't take "unreachable clauses" lightly. They will do something unpredictable, but they will resolve it. No developer wants to expose themselves to unpredictable licensing clauses. Since you made such a major mistake in version 1.0, I am finding it hard to pay attention to 1.1 and 1.2 which you produced within hours. You must not have run it by anyone else. Everyone is busy. This list is not a controller for a genetic algorithm which is writing licenses. Be careful. I am beginning to think that your interest is playing a game with license discuss, and that you have no interest in OSI approval. Forrest -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3