Richard Schilling scripsit: > Look, folks the entire purpose of a license of any kind is to have > something to present to a judge in case something goes wrong, and to > clarify what rights are transferred to the end user. The true test of > a license (for open source work in a business) is what happens in court > and in business negotiations.
If you think that's the entire purpose of the GPL, you haven't read it. > If us non-lawyers defer to lawyers and listen more we may have more > lawyers providing constructive input. As a matter of observable fact, being a lawyer or a nonlawyer has nothing to do with the constructiveness of one's input to this list. > Obviously, people are arguing that the GPL is invalid and providing > some detailed analysis. I hope opensource.org pays attention to that > and gets self-critical about their criteria really quick. At present, > they are endorsing licenses that don't mean anything in front of a > judge. You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
