Branden Robinson wrote:
> Any other opinions on the above license from my fellow debian-legal geeks?
I have two points to raise.
The license under consideration contains the following language:
> Use, copying, modification, merging, publishing, distribution
> and/or sale of this software, source and/or binary files and
> associated documentation files (the "Software") and of derivative
> works based upon this Software are permitted, as long as the
> following conditions are met:
1. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has got me wondering if we really
should specify that we want to combine
copying, modification, distribution, sale
into any arbitrary combination (e.g., copying+modification,
sale+distribution, copying+modification+distribution+sale). After all,
if the UWash lawyers were right about how clauses like these are
understood and we need to clarify modification+distribution, why do we
not want clear specification on any other desirable combination of these
actions?
2. According to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html (FSF's critique of
the Apple Public Source License or APSL):
At a fundamental level, the APSL makes a claim that, if it became
accepted, would stretch copyright powers in a dangerous way: it claims
to be able to set conditions for simply *running* the software. As I
understand it, copyright law in the US does not permit this, except
when encryption or a license manager is used to enforce the
conditions. It would be terribly ironic if a failed attempt at making
a free software license resulted in an extension of the effective
range of copyright power.
and yet this license claims to set terms on "use" outside of any mention
of encryption or a license manager. Please note I don't particularly
care if the latest APSL still makes the same claim as the one the FSF
reviewed, it's the ability to set conditions on "simply *running* the
software" that makes me wonder.
Thanks.
