Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >3. The current AL probably does not convey the above in terms
> >> >   acceptable to lawyers and it is worth making it do so.
> >> >Can we all agree on these points?
> >>
> >>No.  I disagree with #3.
> >
> >May I ask what part you disagree with?
> >
> >That it is probably not acceptable with lawyers?  That is a
> >statement of fact and we have evidence for it.
>What were the names of the lawyers that found it unaccepable?
>(And as I understand 'em if one doesn't like it there will
>by necessity be one that does ;-))

Eben Moglen is one.  After a close reading I see many things
that concern me about it.  I have listed many of those
elsewhere.  As for lawyers disagreeing, I think that is
overblown.  Most lawyers agree on the basics, you just hear
about the ones where two lawyers thought both sides actually
had merit.

> >
> >That it is worth making it do so?  It depends how much it
> >obfuscates the license.
>Exactly. I like the AL because it is layman friendly.

The AL today claims it grants rights that it is doubtful
would stand up in court.  That creates a legal minefield.
Like a buggy code-base, it looks fine until you try to
use it.  (Luckily Perl has never tried to use it.)

> >In my eyes there is a win in having
> >the artistic license actually express the opinion that Tom
> >stated, that artistic control remains with the author but you
> >can do anything which does not infringe.  People want to be
> >able to say that easily.  As long as the cost of coming up
> >with a legally tight way of doing that is not great, why
> >would you object to it being done?
> >
> >Allow me to rephrase.
> >
> >If you saw a license that lawyers liked which was both readable
> >and not significantly different in spirit from the current one
> >(my definition of that spirit is taken from Tom's rant about
> >artistic control and honesty), do you see a net win to adopting
> >it?
>Yes, but I pesonally doubt that something lawyers liked would be
>readable - I have read too many patent claims.

Patent claims are deliberately obfuscated.

In any case I have a draft of something to consider which, while
it probably needs reworking before it is legally sound, I think
may provide a framework.

Could you get back to me on how that can be improved?

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

Reply via email to