Quoting David Woolley ([email protected]): > It means he may think that the licence is preventing the sort of > commercial exploitation he doesn't like, but the commercial > exploiter will ignore the words he is relying on and instead exploit > based on their attempt to re-interpet the letter of the formal > licence.
Nigel should and can speak for himself, but I suspect preventing twisty people from imagining they've found subverting dodges, believed defensible in court, is simply outside the scope of what any 'human language' licence summary can or should reasonably aim to achieve. (It _is_ outside the scope of CC's aims, seems to me.) Which was my point in my prior thread, and I could swear it was pretty clear the first time, albeit I don't mind stating it twice. (Twice is plenty; stepping back now.) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
