Russell Nelson wrote: > > Has A violated the license? That would seem weird, because it pertains > > clear written instructions (even if those instructions are in fact a > > shell script). And since B didn't agree to anything, he isn't bound by > > the 'click-wrap' license. > > The dragon attacks: > > Ask your lawyer to include terms in the license that prohibit > disclosure of the unpacking method. The license will also have to > prohibit distribution of the enclosed tarball.
I don't have a lwyer, and frankly, I'm loathe to hire one just so I can release my sources to the public. If an existing license covers my needs, excellent, but if not, I simply won't be releasing it. Not that the world would collapse without access to my software, but I still think it's a shame. Emile -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
