> > Strictly speaking from a legal sense, it is not needed, however > > for interpretation's sake, you're probably right. I'll add an FAQ > > section to the license page to handle this case. > > I strongly recommend that misleading ambiguities in the licence text > be remedied _in_ the licence text. > > [My clarification that GPLv2's source-access provision does _not_ > get triggered by "linking" (contrary to OSSAL's wording), but rather > by redistribution, snipped.]
If someone who has passed the bar deems it necessary, I'll listen. It doesn't appear to be misleading to my eye and states exactly what I intended it to mean. > > I know, which is why the GPL is problematic. If you're writing an > > in house application, you have within your right the ability to > > link against the GPL. If you try sell a product, the OSSAL > > prevents you from shipping that product if it uses GPL'ed code, > > which is what I want. Means that freshmeat.net or other avenues > > for software announcements will be venerable gold mines for > > businesses in terms of software that they can use in products. [snip] > My overall point is that your concern (if I understand you > correctly) about some other codebase's licence attaching itself to a > OSSAL-covered work used with it is misplaced: It can't happen. > Basic copyright law guarantees that it cannot. I realize that. [snip] > [Snip my attempt to explain why your assumption that "free software > == GPL" isn't correct, and that free software is just a synonym for > open source, with a different marketing program.] > > > Bah, this is exactly why I avoid this kind of semantic propaganda > > silliness. > > On the contrary: I thought it evident that that classification > distinction (dividing free aka open-source software into copyleft > vs. non-copyleft categories) is devoid of advocacy, and is an aid to > clarity. Agreed there, I fully appreciate and use those distinctions on a regular basis... it's the free software vs. open source that I was referring to. [snip] > (As an aside, I'm really boggling at your conclusion that my > category explanation was "propaganda". That's one huge chip on your > shoulder, Sean: It seems to be partially blocking your hearing.) It's not your propaganda, it's propaganda by the time I read about a possible distinction on a news site and as such, I filter it out as noise and chest thumping (again, referring to open source vs free software and the supposed distinction). > > copyleft + product == !possible; non-copyleft + product == possible; > > Plainly outside the scope of licence-evaluation discussion. > (Moreover, tedious.) Trying to state that there is a value in non-copyleft licenses, which seemed to be in question in the past. Please snip in future dialog. > > This doesn't mean it hasn't happened, however. Having it > > explicitly stated doesn't hurt anyone, esp since this isn't the > > 1st time this has happened. > > > > http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml > > As Ian Lance Taylor said -- and as I was saying, for that matter -- > that's basic copyright violation, and would be so regardless of the > code's licence. That's a tort. When someone violates your > copyright, send them a stiffly worded demand letter, and expect > immediate correction preferably accompanied by an abject apology. > If sufficiently incensed, and if you think you can get any, sue for > damages. I know and realize that, having term 6 included in the license for the sake of making it obvious to those who don't know, it doesn't hurt anyone. > Thus my point that the OSSAL provision discussed -- like Darren > Reed's -- is a no-op. Again, I don't know what provision you're referring to or what it was that Darren Reed did. > Basic copyright law renders it irrelevant: It is flat-out unlawful > to "relicense" someone else's copyrighted property. Persons other > than the copyright owner lack title to do so. Therefore, actions > purporting to do so have zero effect -- except in committing torts. > That's what title _means_. And note that S�ren's copyright notice > had been simply lopped off: Having had that copyright notice say > OSSAL instead of BSD would (obviously) have had zero effect on the > situation. Term 6 in the OSSAL doesn't rely on any one nation's copyright laws. > People like Darren write such licence provisions because they > misapprehend how basic copyright law works. You _do_ know how it > works, and so needn't repeat his mistake. *nods* Please send me an offline link to his mistake that way I can take it into consideration as you feel it important to point out some sort of a legal/copyright failing that he had made in the past. -sc -- Sean Chittenden -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
