On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:02:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The wording of the test is simply not clear enough. After all, it was
> motivated by a mere notice which was arguably not even part of the
> license text. I'm not sure if it's against such licenses, certain
> licensing conditions in general, or only if they use some buzzwords
> ("by using this software, you agree to ...").
It's fairly simple, IMHO. If you would have been able to do something
without any licence / permission grant / contract / whatever, and the
licence says that you can't do that something, it cannot be a free licence.
There are juristictional issues which I don't think will be particularly
difficult to work out with a bit of common sense[1], but the core of it is
that, under a free licence, the licensor can't force you to give up rights
you would have in the absence of the licence.
Any remaining confusion? Let's get it sorted out.
- Matt
[1] We're all screwed, I know that.
