Re: FW: Re: License FAQs

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 08:55:26AM -0500, georgina o. economou wrote:
>  --- On Sat 02/21, Sven Luther < sven.luther@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> From: Sven Luther [mailto: sven.luther@xxxxxxxxxx]
> To: xf86gee@xxxxxxxxxx
>      Cc: forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:15:44 +0100
> Subject: Re:  License FAQs

Thanks for changing your quoting style.

> >Thanks for this, the FAQ is a very nice interpretation of the licence,
> >but i wonder how legally binding it is, and what guarantee that this
> >interpretation may not change in the future. 
> 
> We don't change the legal pages much at all.  It will definitely change 
> as more questions get addressed.  A lot of the original questions were removed
> as being extraneous to the current situation but perhaps will be added back in
> as the 'message' gets out.  As for the interpretation, I think that might, and already has changed, since original publication, received a revision to make things clearer.  As for "the interpretation changing", I cannot see how we can control that; we do not own the dictionary and words are fluid and dynamic and change uncontrollably over time.  I think that will inevitably happen so the interpretation will have to change so that the 'intent' is kept, not the language. 

Georgina, i have to remember you that only the XFree86 Project has
the power to sue someone who is violating this license, as such, the
interpretation you give to the otherwise dubious entries of the license,
is of as much importance as the licence itself. And the fear is that you
may say something today, but change that interpretation later on, and
sue people who were thrusting your previous interpretation.

I understand that this is probably very very unlikely, but it is a
preocupation that distributors of XFree86 will consider when evaluating
this licence.

> >AS for myself, i would much
> >prefer (from a legalese point of view), that the point 3 be changed to
> >be made more understandable and that would need less explaining. I
> >believe this is possible, but IANAL.
> 
> what's IANAL?  I Am Nothing At Last?  Haven't a clue on that one.  Pass.

I Am Not A Lawyer, naturally.

> I really think point #3 is understandable but perhaps being a native speaker makes the diff?  Don't know as I am not sure that most of the discussion on this topic is because there _was_ a change,  not that the change itself.  To me the discussion is 1) Change is evil, which is great case for progress, eh?   2)You have no right to make a change without telling me so I could say No (the prima donna syndrome, my personal favorite having been trained originally as a Martha Graham dancer).  I don't see that anyone doesn't understand the change, I think they just are all a bunch of reactionaries. I can hardly wait until the FSF 'improves' (code word for change hint hint)
> their GPL.  I think we should do something GPL so we can get into the action and partake in the fun.

Well, the discussion has shown that this is dubious, and the fact that
you need to clarify the point in the FAQ only shows it. The real
difficulty is to know exactly when and where you should place the
aknowledgement.

For my part, the important points are : 

  1) aknowledgement is needed only if other third parties are also aknowledged.
  2) if various aknowledgement place are possible, how and by whom is
  the choice made of the aknowledgement.

Probably a wording saying were 'due aknowledgement is given, similar to
other third parties aknowledgement' or something such would be better. I
seriously doubt you plan to sue people over this anyway.

And naturally, the 'we won't apply this to client-side libraries' is the
argument which will bring all the problematic discussions to rest, and
should be more enphatized. Maybe even a Slashdot story should be started
about this, or something such.

> I say all of this because most of the questions are highly repititive and based on inflamed emotion, and you guys call women the emotional ones?  doesn't look that way from where I'm watching.  I think this shows even nerds want Oprah, Sally Jesse Raphael, Arsenio and the like to get their entertainment.  I guess there is a place for  /.  and x.org after all ;-)

Please don't count the recent mails from people who have no clue of the
older discussion, and just pipe in after the recent slashdot story.

And maybe some of this is repetitive because it still remains confuse ? 

> >Will you ship this FAQ together with the licence in the source ? I
> >believe that this would be nice, especially as it is not all that big.
> 
> Perhaps for the 4.4 release that would make sense.  I think that's a good suggestion but I am not the Release Engineer and again cannot make that call.

It is good i think, as an explanatory amendment to the the licence in
itself.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum