(excuse the duplication - I forgot to reply to the list.) * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Scripsit Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > However, the licence states that the distributor will not sue or > > help to sue for any reason, where the result would be that the use, > > modification or redistribution of the work would be restricted. > > Yes, but it *also* states that a distributor can chose whatever > license he wishes for his distribution. > > I think we should treat the "anti-license" as a statement of the terms > on which the Debian maintainer acquired the code. As such, they should > be reproduced in extenso in the copyright file.
I agree. I just feel that it needs to be clear that the package is not distributed on the same terms, and that Debian is not providing the same warranties against litigation. I don't think that we need an express explanation to that effect, but simply delimit the CPL from a statement that the package is in the public domain in the copyright file. > It would be really hard for the defendant to argue that text which we > reproduce verbatim as evidence of the original author's intent should > be taken as a binding promise from *us*, applicable even in situations > that have nothing to do with our distributing the software, simply > because we have reproduced the text. Again, I agree - I was proceeding on the assumption that the package would be distributed under the CPL (only), and not that it would simply be included in the copyright notice. Regards, Nic Suzor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
