Dixitur illum B.Candler@... scribere...
>On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 08:53:55AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> + * Markus.Kuhn@... -- 2002-03-11
>> + * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software
>> + * for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted. The author
>> + * disclaims all warranties with regard to this software.
>When I read that, I interpreted it as meaning "can be distributed without
>any royalty being paid to the author", not "no charge must be levied on the
Of course, but if you're a lawyer, how would you interpret it
if he were the client? Or the BSA?
>> Please do change the "without fee" to a "with or
>> without fee"
>That makes it even less clear, in my opinion. How about "free of any
>royalty", or "without compensation to the author".
That would be _even_ better of course - it's just that the "with or
without fee" is a) the minimal change, and b) the commonly used term
for BSD-like licences.
>That's unless the author's intention really *was* to restrict redistribution
I don't think that; I've seen that clause elsewhere, too.
>only to channels which do not levy any charge - I see the author is cc'd so
>he can clarify that point. That's not how I read it, but IANAL.
The author won't get the mail from me, I'm getting a permanent
mailer error due to some idiotic filtering from people who think
they can block IPv4 dial-up but don't accept IPv6 at the same time.
I'd be great if someone would forward the conversion to him.
Currently blocking eMail from the following domains: bigpond.com, biz, gmx.de,
gmx.net, hotmail.com, info, jumpy.it, libero.it, name, netscape.net,
postino.it, simplesnet.pt, spymac.com, tatanova.com, tiscali.co.uk,
tiscali.cz, tiscali.de, tiscali.it, voila.fr, yahoo.co.uk, yahoo.com.