On 2003-10-23 13:33:30 +0100 Colin Percival
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I *hope* that nobody is going to read that as requiring that any
redistributor have a name which both starts, and does not start, with
the
letter "A".
I believe the consensus view here is that absurd licences are invalid
as grants and the defaults under copyright law apply.
It seems reasonable to ask for clarification.
Asking for clarification is one thing; refusing to accept it is
quite
another.
Please add your clarifications to your licence text. Assertions here
may not be taken into consideration. I'm not sure what current opinion
is about legal validity of unsigned emails to a public list.
How am I (mis)representing anything as being a work "from BSD"?
What is
"BSD", anyway, as a legal entity? (AFAIK, BSD inc. no longer exists.)
I suggest that it is reasonable to expect that "BSD Protection
License" would create the impression of being a "Protection Licence"
originally from "BSD", just as "BSD License" is normally considered a
"License" originally from "BSD". In that case, BSD is generally
recognised to be the Berkeley Software Distribution, which you also
seem to recognise. (AFAIK, BSDI was bought by someone, including any
trademarks and goodwill, but that is tangential.)
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
