>>>>> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathanael> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'd rather go with a similar policy to where we stand with
>> patents. If a license termination clause isn't being actively
>> enforced, and there's no good reason to suspect that it will be
>> in future, we should accept it as free.
Nathanael> I would assume that if a licensor put such a clause in
Nathanael> their license, they intend to use it.
I don't think this is a good assumption based on my involvement in
development of legal documents. Most lawyers need an explicit reason
to not include something, not a reason to include something.
--Sam
