Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said: >> Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > This one time, at band camp, Måns Rullgård said: >> >> There is one thing about that license that strikes me as slightly odd. >> >> >> >> Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, >> >> including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it >> >> freely, subject to the following restrictions: >> >> >> >> In the above grant of permissions, I see no explicit grant to >> >> distribute modified versions. It is fairly obvious from the remainder >> >> of the license that such permission was intended, but it should still >> >> be explicitly mentioned. >> > >> > "Permission is granted to ... alter it and redistribute it freely" seems >> > like it does just that? >> >> The first "it" is clearly referring to the unmodified source. The >> second "it" has no other noun to refer to, so must also be referring >> to the unmodified source. Had the text said something like "and >> redistribute it freely, with or without modification", all would be >> much clearer. The BSD license uses this precise phrase. >> >> One can never be too careful with legal language. > > One can also try to be slightly sensible.
Try telling that to the lawyers. > English is an inexact language at the best of times. In this > context, the meaning is clear enough - it's a logical and operation. > Of course it's possible that some legalistic moron could find a way > to argue that the intent of the license is the opposite of what it > apparently says, but I doubt it will stand up in any court that > counts. Even the Eastern District Court of Texas? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
