From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-25 21:51:28
[2003-06-25] David Abrahams wrote:
>Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or
>> obtaining a copy of the software covered by this license (the "Software")
>> to: use, reproduce, display, distribute, execute, transmit,
>This part of the list lacks a subject "The Software".
>> prepare derivative works of the Software,
>Which you want to avoid confusing with this.
Then perhaps two separate sentences would make that distinction clear.
>This part of the license has been fairly carefully worked out. It's
>good to make things read more easily, but they must retain their
I see that all of it was carefully crafted (not being sarcastic, just in
case). I was just trying to portray what I understood. Which, since it is
different than what the Lawyers meant is a problem IMO.
>> and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to do
>I prefer "and to permit others to do so". This phrase has just been
>approved by the lawyers as legally equivalent, and it's much easier to
>read, so I hope we'll use it.
Shorter is good :-)
>> all subject to the following:
>> The copyright notice in the Software and this entire statement, including
>> the above license grant, this restriction, and the following disclaimer,
>> must be included, in whole or in part, in all copies of the
>> Software, and
>That makes it sounds like it's OK to include just part of the
>copyright, license, etc. Once again my remarks (**) apply here.
Yes I saw, and I thought my later reply pointed that out. But perhaps it
also didn't :-\
I'll say it again more directly... It's good work from the Lawyers.
Being easily understood and still legally accurate are very hard things to
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq