Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >3. The current AL probably does not convey the above in terms
>> > acceptable to lawyers and it is worth making it do so.
>> >Can we all agree on these points?
>>
>>No. I disagree with #3.
>
>May I ask what part you disagree with?
>
>That it is probably not acceptable with lawyers? That is a
>statement of fact and we have evidence for it.
What were the names of the lawyers that found it unaccepable?
(And as I understand 'em if one doesn't like it there will
by necessity be one that does ;-))
>
>That it is worth making it do so? It depends how much it
>obfuscates the license.
Exactly. I like the AL because it is layman friendly.
>In my eyes there is a win in having
>the artistic license actually express the opinion that Tom
>stated, that artistic control remains with the author but you
>can do anything which does not infringe. People want to be
>able to say that easily. As long as the cost of coming up
>with a legally tight way of doing that is not great, why
>would you object to it being done?
>
>Allow me to rephrase.
>
>If you saw a license that lawyers liked which was both readable
>and not significantly different in spirit from the current one
>(my definition of that spirit is taken from Tom's rant about
>artistic control and honesty), do you see a net win to adopting
>it?
Yes, but I pesonally doubt that something lawyers liked would be
readable - I have read too many patent claims.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
