Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I also don't think the original license was at all ambiguous in the > clause 3 vs. clause 4 issue: such a license is a grant of permission, > and if I grant you permission to do X if Y, and also grant permission > to do X if Z, then if you do either Y or Z, then you can do X. If one > wanted to tie the two clauses together, then you'd have to add some > explicit language linking the two clauses.
I think it's a question of how "if" is interpreted. "X if Y; X if Z" is equivalent to "X if (Y or Z)" However, "X if and only if Y; X if and only if Z" is equivalent to "X if (Y and Z)" Some choose to interpret the word "if" as meaning "if and only if", whereas others choose the meaning "if, and possibly otherwise". The word "if", as used in the English language, doesn't provide that distinction by itself. In a legal document, such as a license, care should be taken to make it clear which of these versions you actually mean, or the judge/jury/lawyers may well choose the other, if there is ever a court case. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
