Thanks, it would really help :) Best,
Fran El dv 22 de 01 de 2010 a les 17:59 -0500, en/na Robert Frederking va escriure: > I'll look into whether I can get the 5th clause dropped, but can't > promise yet. > > Bob > > Francis Tyers wrote: > > I'm copying both Robert and the debian-legal list with this. > > > > Best regards to both, > > > > Fran > > > > El ds 23 de 01 de 2010 a les 09:29 +1100, en/na Ben Finney va escriure: > > > > > Francis Tyers <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > > > > Here is a reply from Robert Frederking at CMU. > > > > > > > Thank you for getting this direct communication. > > > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:32:29 -0500 > > > > From: Robert Frederking <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > I'm not a lawyer, but let me start by stating that out intent was > > > > simply that re-use included acknowledgement. This was not intended to > > > > be a splash-screen on every start-up, or making the software pronounce > > > > our names at the start of every sentence. :-) It only has to be > > > > "clearly visible" in anyone's source files. > > > > > > > Would it be possible to simply drop that clause altogether? Its intent, > > > as stated above, seems to be completely covered by existing clauses in > > > the license, and worded as it is currently it's dangerously vague and > > > over-reaching the stated intent. > > > > > > > > > > We aren't interested in suing people; we are a non-profit research > > > > organization. But like the Regents in California, we have a > > > > responsibility to our sponsors that appropriate credit is given for > > > > our work. So this is intended to be like the old BSD advertising > > > > clause, which is generally considered to be clear from a legal point > > > > of view. > > > > > > > These assurances are good, but don't have much legal weight compared to > > > the actual license wording. Leaving the wording as-is makes recipients > > > open to the exploitation of the vague wording by a hypothetical future > > > administration with less friendly intent. > > > > > > This clause (IMO) fails the colourfully named “Tentacles of Evil” test > > > <URL:http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#tentacles_of_evil>. > > > That it seems to be redundant with other clauses for the intent stated > > > above would suggest the best solution is simply to drop that clause > > > altogether from the license terms. > > > > > > An alternative solution to this would be to dual-license the work, > > > granting the recipient the choice of the terms of this license or > > > another widely-known free-software license, such as the GNU GPL or the > > > Expat license <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>. > > > > > > -- > > > \ “Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas | > > > `\ are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.” | > > > _o__) —Howard Aiken | > > > Ben Finney > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
