On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > (However, in other cases we have ruled that some clause is not > non-free only because it is not enforceable, so perhaps our general > position is not very clear).
I'm not generally comfortable with that approach. For one thing, the license terms explain what the author wants; saying "it's free because it's not enforcable" implies ignoring the author's wishes. For another, it's probably hard to say that it's not enforable in all jurisdictions. I do seem to recall this, but I can't place it. Does anyone remember a license which was considered free, and had non-free but unenforcable clauses? -- Glenn Maynard
