On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:37:16AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > We've had cases previously where a licensor has interpreted a licence in > common use as a DFSG-free licence in a non-free manner; can you give any > solid reason why that could not be an issue in this case?
That can *always* be the case: just about any free license can be interpreted in unusual ways that make them non-free; even the simple MIT license. This is never an issue in and of itself, unless we have real reason to believe that a license really is being interpreted in such a way (eg. UWash). > We have a licence > which (AFAIK) we've never seen before, with an ambiguous clause, and some of > us would like to take the diligent path and disambiguate it. That's what the issue really is. We might not know whether this is simply a redundant "we retain copyright on things we have copyright on anyway", or a strange attempt at copyright assignment. (I say "might" because I don't really have a strong opinion on this.) -- Glenn Maynard
