David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Silly, philosophical point: if the author is dead, then there is a > > greatly reduced risk of the author coming back and "clarifying" the > > licence, so presumably you can interpret the licence more broadly in > > that case. > > Of course, you've got the possibility of some descendent coming after > you, who may have found the very concept of giving it away absurd, and > is happy to take a very narrow interpretation of the license.
A spouse might have some kind of special authority, but a random descendent can't claim to have a more authoritative knowledge of the author's intentions than anyone else in the world, so there's no reason anyone should take any particular interest in the descendent's interpretation. That's what I meant. Edmund
