* MJ Ray: > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: >> > Andres Mejia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> > > >> > > You may use this sample code for anything you like, it is not covered b> >> > > y the >> > > LGPL like the rest of the engine." >> > >> > No clear permission to modify or distribute. I think it needs clarifying. >> > Sorry. >> >> While it might be useful to get that clarified, I think the intent is >> fairly clear. > > How can one tell that they intend 'use' to mean 'use, copy, distribute and > modify' or something like that?
It's intended to be less restrictive than the LGPL (otherwise, the explanatory second clause doesn't explain anything), so "anyhting you like" has to be interpreted as the widest possible copyright license. Furthermore, the Copyright Act uses "use" as a catch-all term for any kind of exploitation of a work in a few cases. > It's not obvious from the written text and we've encountered the > opposite case before (PINE, seyon pre-GPL, IIRC). The Pine license was clarified by the copyright holder in the wrong direction. On paper, it's as ambiguous as ISC's variant of the BSD license, for instance. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
