On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:30:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > I think it is counterintuitive to read the "directly or > > > indirectly" as a restrictive phrasing. On the contrary, > > > it is meant to be inclusive, pointing out explicitly that the rights > > > granted can *not* be restricted to *direct* recipients only. > > > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the > > recipient and all third parties". > > Sure. It just looked (to me; I may be dense) as if your objection was > material rather than just related to a poor choice of words.
In my opinion, clarity is a virtue. My objection becomes material with the first licensor who decides to resolve the license's ambiguous wording in an unexpected or undesirable manner. -- G. Branden Robinson | The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux | perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | do. -- Eric Hoffer
pgpRYYxnk7Y6k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
