Rick Moen wrote:
It's called 'realism'. The reason well written licences have an irreducible complexity about them is that they are obliged to deal with real legal issues, e.g., the way warranty disclaimers are required to be
The reality is that the people who have to comply with licences are not professional lawyers. If they are presented with lots of legalese, they are likely to ignore it, as most people do with shrink wrap licence agreements, or the legal stuff hidden in low contrast, small font links at the bottom of web pages, which the designers would rather not have there at all.
I suspect that licences with lots of legalese discriminate against medium size enterprises. Very small ones, and individuals, are not worth suing, and very big one have bigger lawyers than yours. The medium sized enterprise is not going to want to bring in a lawyer every time a design specification is reviewed, so, if their management cannot understand the licence, they may just play safe by looking for different solutions.
-- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
