Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What did he/she think about the following clause?
Not that I'm that person (first I heard of any of this was the announcement), but this seems like as good of a place as any to make the point that to me is obvious but that no one else seems to be making. >> (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to >> run in conjunction with any additional software that implements >> the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software; The interpretation of that clause rests both on what conjunction means and on whether one believes the presence of a clearly stated interpretation in the accompanying FAQ, regardless of disclaimers on that FAQ, might still constitute estoppel. Given that Sun has stated that their interpretation of "conjunction" is basically what Debian would call a derivative work and has done so publicly in accompanying documentation, I'd be very interested in a legal opinion on whether they would be barred by estoppel from reneging on that interpretation and applying the more restrictive interpretations advanced here at some future date. The fact that the FAQ says that it's not the license terms and is not legally binding as such doesn't strike me as necessarily relevant; the question is not whether the FAQ is a legal document, but rather what interpretation Sun puts on the words used in the license. My (non-lawyer) understanding of estoppel is that public statements like the FAQ, even with disclaimers attached, are relevant. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
