Marcus Brinkmann wrote: >However, it is not as obvious as you want to make us believe. Things that >are not explicitely allowed are forbidden. Things that are not spelled out, >are not there at all. There is only little room for interpretation of legal >texts.
I think this is a matter of legal traditions. In legal systems derived from English Common Law, anything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. The author (by his timezone) is apparently in America or Canada so, if he chose to enforce the licence, US or Canadian law would apply. Furthermore, a court ought to be reluctant to penalise someone because of vagueness in the licence. Finally, the meaning of the clause > > > Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any > > > purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely, seems to be quite clear: there are no restrictions other than those stated later in the licence. Ergo, the licence is DSFG compliant. -- Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1 ======================================== Come to me, all you who labour and are heavily laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Matthew 11: 28-30) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
