Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem - >>> aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held >>> unenforcable? >> >>Probably, but you're still working against the author's wishes in that >>circumstance. I'd rather a licence that didn't try and compel me to break >>the law in the first place. > > If the author wishes us to break the law, then I don't think we have any > obligation to follow the author's wishes.
Yes, but we can follow both the author's wishes and the law by not distributing such software. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
