On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:28:30AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Strictly speaking, our concerns are only whether a license is > > legimitate, and whether it's DFSG-free. > > Well, when we see stuff like the cdrdao license, which appears to create > a dual-licensed mess along the lines of my hypothetical, I'd have > concerns about that license being legitimate. > > Since it really doesn't make any sense what so ever, I don't think the > author intended to actually apply the GPL.
It is perfectly reasonable for us to err on the side of caution and elect not to distribute a work when the copyright license on it is self-contradictory and confusing. Indeed, to avoid distributing it is the best defense against an allegation of copyright infringement. -- G. Branden Robinson | I am sorry, but what you have Debian GNU/Linux | mistaken for malicious intent is [EMAIL PROTECTED] | nothing more than sheer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II
pgpZsTIfY3mph.pgp
Description: PGP signature
