Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 05:49:11PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: >> Is it true that a copyright licence with mutually exclusive terms are >> non-free? > > As a general rule, it's completely invalid, so you fall back to the > default position of having no license. > > However, if it contains one of those clauses that says "If any clause > is rendered invalid for whatever reason then the other clauses remain > in force" then it's lawyer bait and could mean just about > anything. There are likely some other specific cases where licenses > remain partially valid, whatever that means.
What about the ones that say "You must do one of these", giving a bunch of possibly incompatible options? -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
