Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
>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 ;-))
Eben Moglen is one. After a close reading I see many things
that concern me about it. I have listed many of those
elsewhere. As for lawyers disagreeing, I think that is
overblown. Most lawyers agree on the basics, you just hear
about the ones where two lawyers thought both sides actually
had merit.
> >
> >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.
The AL today claims it grants rights that it is doubtful
would stand up in court. That creates a legal minefield.
Like a buggy code-base, it looks fine until you try to
use it. (Luckily Perl has never tried to use it.)
> >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.
Patent claims are deliberately obfuscated.
In any case I have a draft of something to consider which, while
it probably needs reworking before it is legally sound, I think
may provide a framework.
Could you get back to me on how that can be improved?
Thanks,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
