>> 'Course, since the person who wrote the license apparently doesn't
>> know how to use a comma or a semicolon to save her life, who knows
>> what it says? (Several of the clauses probably don't say what the
>> author intended, are ambiguous in what they say, or just plain don't
>> pass basic grammatical muster and thus don't really say anything
>> coherently.)
This is why I'm baffled that more people won't join with me in asking for a redraft of the license. The redraft wouldn't be a per se binding interpretation of the first one, but if it were clearer then maybe people would voluntarily shift over to a clearer license.
When I generally debate points in the license, I frequently don't do so to support a specific point, but to encourage others to join in and agree with me that the license is filled with, if not unintelligible, then at least vague and confusing structures.
It also includes absolutely odd language like demanding ownership of PI and then gives no standard for ownership and a list of protectable PI, some of which can't normally (to my knowledge) be owned unless they are trademarks, and sometimes not even then.
Lee
Lee
