Licence which allows trivial conversion to undocumented.

[David Johnson]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Dave  J Woolley wrote:

> However, this licence requires the recipient of the software
> to have the documentation for the licence to be valid,
> but allows sub-licensing without this constraint.  That means
> the documentation requirement can trivially be circumvented,
> making it of little value to include it in the first place.

Other than the strange warning on the bottom, it appears to be a
straightforward MIT license to me. I'm not sure what your concern with
the documentation is. There is no documentation requirement that I can
see, unless it is mentioned elsewhere outside of the license.

> (The other problem in this case, I suspect, is that the
> copyright owner is not a "legal person".)

I don't know the legal status of WegaLink. But if they are not a
corporation, then their name is what is known (in the US at least) as a
"fictitious business name". I don't think there's a problem
here as the copyright would belong to the owners of the firm regardless
of their "alias".

 -- 
David Johnson
_______________________
http://www.usermode.org