3 ms·

There's no bug there. Copyright is about distribution, not use, so the “use” part is probably unnecessary anyway. And the warranty part is not conditional upo

by nzp 10y ago

There's no bug there. Copyright is about distribution, not use, so the “use” part is probably unnecessary anyway. And the warranty part is not conditional upon the two conditions. The MIT license is practically the same, and the analysis given in the article does not make note of this supposed bug, so we can consider that lawyer-confirmed. IANAL, so it's just my understanding of the issue. I remember people mentioning another possible bug in BSD licenses: if you try to split hairs, and depending on the way you do it, it's questionable if the sentence before the enumerated conditions is part of those conditions or not. If not, that sentence needs not be distributed in copies, so it makes the whole thing meaningless.

kazinator 10y ago
Yes, copyright is about distribution, indeed. But licensing isn't purely about copyright! (In the area of proprietary software, it's not even important; the vendor has all the rights and that is clear from the beginning.) A license is not simply a copyright notice, even if it is on free software. (Though of course it includes one.) When you give stuff away for free, you can still be liable for harm arising from it. This applies in ordinary situations, like giving your neighbor an old toaster you don't want, and it causing a fire. So the use aspect of the license with the disclaimer is equally necessary to the rights-granting part. > If you try to split hairs, and depending on the way you do it, it's questionable if the sentence before the enumerated conditions is part of those conditions or not. You raise and excellent point, and I'm going to fix it. I can't see any reason why it should not say "... the above copyright notice, all the introductory text which follows, this list of conditions ...". Really, why isn't it simplified to "this entire license". The GPLv2 cheerfully does this, with the wording "... give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." That puts an end to any hair splitting about possibly omitted parts.
- nzp 10y ago
  Ah, not quite so fast! If you write: “all the introductory text which follows”, that might be construed as meaning not the part between the notice and the text which follows these words. So we have to have a terminating condition for this recursion of uncertainty. I agree, “this entire license” is probably the best form. But anyway, my point, in the above and in my other reply with the anecdotes, is that while you may be perfectly right from the stand point of common sense and logic, it may not translate to being legally right. Of course, I think you modifications are reasonable, but I have to agree with matt4077 – it creates problems and uncertainty for others, you're (I guess?) not a lawyer, and even if you were, they would still need to consult lawyers about it. It adds friction.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    Ah yes, which follows it is much better; then we just have to deal with ambiguities regarding the antecedent of a pronoun. :)

by nzp 10y ago

kazinator 10y ago

Yes, copyright is about distribution, indeed. But licensing isn't purely about copyright! (In the area of proprietary software, it's not even important; the vendor has all the rights and that is clear from the beginning.) A license is not simply a copyright notice, even if it is on free software. (Though of course it includes one.) When you give stuff away for free, you can still be liable for harm arising from it. This applies in ordinary situations, like giving your neighbor an old toaster you don't want, and it causing a fire. So the use aspect of the license with the disclaimer is equally necessary to the rights-granting part. > If you try to split hairs, and depending on the way you do it, it's questionable if the sentence before the enumerated conditions is part of those conditions or not. You raise and excellent point, and I'm going to fix it. I can't see any reason why it should not say "... the above copyright notice, all the introductory text which follows, this list of conditions ...". Really, why isn't it simplified to "this entire license". The GPLv2 cheerfully does this, with the wording "... give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." That puts an end to any hair splitting about possibly omitted parts.

nzp 10y ago
Ah, not quite so fast! If you write: “all the introductory text which follows”, that might be construed as meaning not the part between the notice and the text which follows these words. So we have to have a terminating condition for this recursion of uncertainty. I agree, “this entire license” is probably the best form. But anyway, my point, in the above and in my other reply with the anecdotes, is that while you may be perfectly right from the stand point of common sense and logic, it may not translate to being legally right. Of course, I think you modifications are reasonable, but I have to agree with matt4077 – it creates problems and uncertainty for others, you're (I guess?) not a lawyer, and even if you were, they would still need to consult lawyers about it. It adds friction.
- kazinator 10y ago
  Ah yes, which follows it is much better; then we just have to deal with ambiguities regarding the antecedent of a pronoun. :)