Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 13/01/2017 22:54, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." ... or more succintly, if we have

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 13/01/2017 20:29, John Cowan wrote: When the BSD/ISC/MIT licenses say that you must include the text of the license in derivative works, that's exactly what is meant: the words of the license must be provided as part of the documentation. It does not mean that they must be incorporated into

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On 13/01/2017 19:36, Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: I tried interpreting the terms of common permissive licenses following a "step by step" approach, like if they were instructions in programminng code, and I found

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Massimo Zaniboni < massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com> wrote: Probably I'm wrong, but I'm curious to understand where. So if someone has > the patience to read the post, can report here a fault part of my > reasoning, so I can understand better and maybe discuss?

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

Hi, Larry-- Computer grammars can have context-free parsers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar The phrase I used was as much a term of art from computer language / formal grammar theory, much as the terms of a software license involve terms of art from the law. Regards, --

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

Chuck Swiger wrote: > This is a pretty common mistake that developers tend to make when reviewing > licenses. The law doesn't come in a fully denormalized grammar suitable for > context-free parsing; more importantly, judges aren't compilers. The law DOES come in a "fully denormalized

Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Massimo Zaniboni wrote: > I tried interpreting the terms of common permissive licenses following a > "step by step" approach, like if they were instructions in programminng code, > and I found with my big surprises that doing so

[License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses

Hi, I tried interpreting the terms of common permissive licenses following a "step by step" approach, like if they were instructions in programminng code, and I found with my big surprises that doing so they became non permissive licenses, or permissive licenses only using some "border-line"