On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 01:41 +0200, Rubén Rodríguez Pérez wrote: > It was also reported at Trisquel (thanks, Marcooliva), but I didn't have > much time to review it, as it is a tricky license this one. Its problem > is the absence of *explicit* permission for modifications:
Licenses *can* be understood to have implicit permissions. Obviously we strongly prefer things to be as explicit as possible, but when push comes to shove -- as in the case of an unreachable author -- we may be able to rely on permissions that are not so explicit. And I think it might be reasonable to argue that this license provides implicit permission to modify -- because if the author intended to prohibit modification, what would be the purpose of including point (3)? I'll discuss this with some lawyers and RMS to get an official ruling on this. I'll let you all know what the verdict is, although it might take a few weeks depending on what legal issues have to be researched. -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation Support the FSF by becoming an Associate Member: http://fsf.org/jf
