At 16:42 -0700 2000.09.10, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> However, I feel the need to emphasize that licenses are not necessarily
>> legal documents.
>
>I think this is a key point of disagreement. If the license is not a
>legal document, it's not a *license*; it may be a statement of permission
>or something else somewhat more vague, but a license *is* a legal
>document. From the OED:
>
>2 a A formal, usually a printed or written permission from a constituted
>authority to do something, e.g. to marry, to print or publish a book, to
>preach, to carry on some trade, etc.; a permit.
Yes, but it doesn't have to have anything to do with law. I, myself, could
be the constituted authority.
>To me, that would be very close to placing the software in the public
>domain
Right, but it doesn't even claim that much. The key difference between
this and public domain is that I don't REJECT the copyright (not claiming
or asserting it doesn't make it go away), and therefore I retain it. Note
that it does not say explicitly that you can use it for any purpose
whatsoever. But that is clearly implicit.
>(although if you were to use a license like that, I would recommend
>saying those words to make the legal stance clear)
But ... there IS no legal stance. That's the point.
>But the statement of intent, like
>the preamble to the GPL, isn't, strictly speaking, part of the
>*license*.
Sure, but I wouldn't even want a statement of intent. Well, maybe I would,
something like: "I am distributing this software for other people to use."
Anyway, I look forward to the more constructive direction you've proposed
we take this discussion. It should prove interesting. Maybe we can start
by just restating the AL in even plainer English and see where that leads.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
