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