[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New OPL Draft

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New OPL Draft
From: Raul Miller <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:13:11 -0500
Cc: Richard Stallman <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 02:13:15AM -0800
References: <[email protected]> <20000117235223.A150@localhost> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <20000131231658.C163@localhost> <[email protected]>
Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Resent-date: 26 Feb 2000 15:15:39 -0000
Resent-from: [email protected]
Resent-message-id: <BdcY6B.A.gm.a4-t4@murphy>
Resent-sender: [email protected]
User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i

On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 02:13:15AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> I also agree.  One license with clearly-defined options, flagged in the
> title, would be vastly better than three licenses.

It would also be less clear.

Legally, there's a difference between an unambiguous license and
a license where the person excercising the license can choose the
license terms.

-- 
Raul

--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

References:
- Updating the OpenContent license
  - From: David Wiley <[email protected]>
- Re: Updating the OpenContent license
  - From: David Lawyer <[email protected]>
- New OPL Draft
  - From: David Wiley <[email protected]>
- Re: New OPL Draft
  - From: Richard Stallman <[email protected]>
- Re: New OPL Draft
  - From: David Lawyer <[email protected]>
- Re: New OPL Draft
  - From: [email protected]

Prev by Date: Feedback
Next by Date: Re: New OPL Draft
Previous by thread: Re: New OPL Draft
Next by thread: Re: New OPL Draft
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread