On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> I'd like to find out what lawyer thought a long license is needed with every
> file. Because I question that finding.

Question the board@ (again) for a black/white answer - or work with
licensing@ for a more interactive reply.

But Bear in mind that the current 'license' is more than just strictly a
license; it contains elements of copyright, waiver and an agreement.

Bear in mind that the answer to vague questions like that carry very
significant price tags; and are very depended on the exact question; which
itself by its very nature is inexact.

Also bear in mind that there are very, very few layers who actually have
studied open-source licenses in sufficient dept; and that most answers
from case-law are about proprietary and protectionist stances; and often
very US specific; and may be very dated.

Also bear in mind that the answer differs from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction; and from how litagationous/defensive the side you want to
err on is.

Finally bear in mind that the board propably does not want to ask
expensive questions now with respect to the current license; as the new
license is not far off - and the new license has taken into account this
desire to include by reference.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to