Hi Henrik, On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:16 AM Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
> > Forgive me, but that is just a redundant statement that is legal weasel > wording. You're essentially still saying that if an API could be protected > by copyright, in some jurisdiction, then the CAL would still claim those > rights. In my understanding, the previous review round was fairly strongly > against this. > I would have you know that I am 1/16 weasel. On my mother's side. More seriously, the CAL goes right up to the border of copyright, whatever that may be. I don't apologize for that. I understood the policy concern resulting from appearing to push the boundaries, so I removed that.[1] But the CAL makes the same bargain as other reciprocal licenses - and if I am correct about where the law will end up, has exactly the same scope. Thanks, Van [1] My thinking here was motivated in part by some of my old writings criticizing the GPL FAQ for its interpretations that very much do push the boundaries of copyright, but are quoted as near-scripture and taken as authoritative.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
