On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > No, the current lyx license just plain isn't correct (as a legal issue). > I wrote the prior qualifications a few years ago, but John replaced that > with what it says now. The problem is that that's just not what the law > did on the initial release.
This may well be true, but personally I'd much rather go with the standard wording decided by the FSF's lawyers (and used in several other projects) than go it alone. > Regardless of what the current "license" says, xforms does not have a > special status; the entire clause of the putative GPL license was put > aside when Matthias released the code, saying it was GPL but inviting > people to redistribute. *Any* library can be used in the same manner > as xforms, and we are powerless to object or assert that clause of the > GPL. Can you explain why ? > But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer who contributed time to get this > right only to see it wiped aside without consulting me. I did not know that you'd done this when I suggested moving to the FSF text some time ago, and nobody told me - I'm sorry about this, but you cannot really blame me for not being aware of it. regards, john
