Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This not a theory. This is practical experience. This is why pine is > not free.
The awkward phrase in the pine license is: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee to the University of Washington is hereby granted" The same phrase appears in several other licenses that we consider free. Your argument appears to be that we should consider those licenses non-free because the words can be interpreted in a non-free manner. I think this argument is crack. > It is entirely possible that some licensor could go to court and say > "I used the CC licenses in the belief that this was prohibited, and > with the intent to prohibit it". There is nothing to use in defence > against this. They could do that with any number of pieces of software we already distribute. If the University of Washington had a case, so do a vast number of other people. That's not a situation we can work with, so instead we assume that licensors aren't hostile unless proven otherwise. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
