At 19:10 -0400 2000.09.10, Chris Nandor wrote:
>No, I am interested in both.  The fact that you didn't understand that
>could be my fault, but I think I made it clear enough.

You know, I think I want to make this more clear.

I am interested in how various licenses will be interpreted legally.  I am
interested in discussing whether or not the AL would "hold water" in court.

However, I feel the need to emphasize that licenses are not necessarily
legal documents.  I've stated enough on this already, perhaps, but it is
almost enough to make me want to have a license that says:

   I, the author, make no legal claims to this software
   whatsoever.  But if you call it your own or redistribute
   it modified under the same name without clearly noting the
   modifications made, me and my friends will dislike you.

My point is just that law does not have to be related to licenses and
rights.  Your statements were coming from the perspective that if it
doesn't pass some court or legal system's idea of valid, then it is invalid
for anyone to use, and I cannot and will not buy this.

By all means, if you don't want to discuss these matters, then we won't.
Just don't use such absolutist language that leads me to believe that you
are saying that no one can legally use my software if the license is
"legally vague," because I won't buy it, and I will argue against it.

Chris Nandor                      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source Development Network    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to