David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > People are generously dealing in advice here even where the case law > indicates that in reality things are much less clearcut than they want > to make believe. And that is simply reckless when giving advice.
To clarify, my aim here is to discuss questions which I find interesting, not to give advice. Sorry that I haven't been clearer about this. Anyway, my advice would usually be the following: 1. If you want to minimize the risk of being taken to court in the first place (usually the case for individuals), follow the letter of the license as well as the copyright holder's interpretation. (There is a case of the Debian project not distributing an MIT licensed program, because the copyright holder interprets the grant of "distribution and modification" rights as allowing either distribution or modification, but not distribution of modifications.) 2. If you want to do something which contradicts the copyright holder's interpretation, ask the copyright holder if s/he would be willing to license the work to you under different conditions. 3. If you need legal advice, consult a lawyer. However, if it appears that somebody wants to do something which would be harmful to the Free Software community and its goals, I prefer to remain silent. I don't see it as my task to help people achieve something which I consider unethical, even if it is lawful. Martin _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
