Paul Jarc wrote:
> "Michael T. Babcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since the author gives no implicit license, we all come down to
> > IANAL legal battles over what is implied by his other writings. A
> > license would clear (most of) this up -- that's the issue.
>
> A license has the potential to be just as ill-worded, confusing, or
> extremely technical as anything else. A clearly worded, easily
> supportable legal document would be good, regardless of whether it
> were a license.
As DJB has said ... 'so?' How does that make this argument any different?
Nobody asked for a poorly worded license ... ;-)
> Right. So a non-contractual license wouldn't necessarily be better
> than a non-contractual, non-license legal statement.
Yes, it would be -- because (as I understand it) you have the right to waive
your rights -- such as by putting something into the public domain (as Dan has
done with libtai). A license gives rights to others -- Dan's current documents
talk about the rights he thinks you have under the law as it is.
> The present documents are as good as a license *for some purposes*.
> For other purposes, such as packaging, we'd want irrevocable
> permission to redistribute. But this permission need not take the
> form of a license, and a license need not grant that permission. The
> ideas are compatible, and often come together, but they're orthogonal.
> I'll agree that a disclaimer might be beneficial in either case for
> good-faith purposes; I don't know enough to support or refute that.
--
Michael T. Babcock, C.T.O. FibreSpeed
http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
