On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:21:16PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I want an unambiguous license included with the software that
> > explicitly defines what I am allowed to do with it. If you don't
> > need that then fine, but please don't argue that it's not needed,
> > because there are clearly a number of people on this list that
> > desire it.
>
> Please don't confuse need with desire. You may not like dist.html or
> softwarelaw.html or rights.html, but I don't see ambiguity in them,
You don't, but others do. For instance, I can distribute a package that
contains pristine qmail source and patches, and include a script which
applies the patches, changes conf-home, and compiles and installs qmail.
According to dist.html, that would be fine. But what if Dan found out
someone was doing this and got angry? Maybe he'd think about changing
dist.html. After he changed it, could I then continue distributing this
package without fear of being sued?
> and I don't see how including them in the software distributions would
> make them any more legally significant.
Including them in the tarball would set specific terms on specific pieces of
software.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires."
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
2:52pm up 163 days, 13:08, 11 users, load average: 0.28, 0.08, 0.03
