11 ms·
> It's a blessing, not an obligation or a demand or a condition of use. That's how we interpret it. The problem is that we don't know what the rights-holder ha
by derleth 13y ago
> It's a blessing, not an obligation or a demand or a condition of use.
That's how we interpret it. The problem is that we don't know what the rights-holder has in mind, and what that entity's willing to sue over.
Lawyers can be comically risk-averse. Comical, that is, until you see the kinds of things people actually sue over.
- dchest 13y agoDon't overthink it: https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
- computer 13y agoSee this 3 minute presentation fragment about the "Do not use JSLint for Evil" license clause: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA
- aw3c2 13y agoIt's so idiotic. Who of those who do evil in my view, do agree that what they are doing is evil?
- comex 13y agoThe quote explicitly "disclaims copyright" and includes the blessing "in place of a legal notice". It would be truly absurd even for a lawyer to believe that the blessing constitutes a copyright license anyway.
- vsl 13y ago> That's how we interpret it. No. That follows from the fact that the author gives up copyright. No copyright -> no license terms.