license-ish vs. Bill of Rights-ish

[Steve Mallett]

> Microsoft has not chosen to attack GNU/Linux or other free software
> products directly on licensing terms.  They've attempted typical
> moving-goalposts attacks on other aspects of free software (WINE,
> Samba), and are now appearing to try to rewrite the ground rules with
> dirty tricks such as SSSCA and the proposed DoJ settlement which would
> allow them to bar competitive, free, technologies (again, Samba).
>
> Licensing isn't the problem, strategy is.  This is broader than mere
> contract writing.

Agreed.  I will add that *strategy* consideration to what I'm writing.

I think that regardless of the license's effectiveness it is MSFT's or anyone 
else's best use of time and resources to cut off the supply at the source.  
No pun intended, but would anyone disagree that the license's legal (in 
court) enforceability is _not_ the larger issue in this instance, but the 
_intent_ of it?  In this case, they are opposing the legal implications.  Non?


So my question remains, though better defined...  Does it matter that a 
license is legal defensible in a court room??? Or that (with the strategic 
twist) it is understandable by the masses?  I will maintain that, so far, 
there has been miserable success in not mutually excluding the two.

Legalese                      Clear Intent       (Legal Model)        
--------------------------
^

or 

Legalese                      Clear Intent       (Can be put on a bumper
--------------------------        sticker model)
                                           ^

-- 
Steve Mallett | Stable, Open-Source Apps 
steve at opensourcedirectory.com | http://OSDir.org 
webmaster at opensource.org
http://open5ource.net   <GPG, Voice, etc.>


"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good."
        -- Mohandas Gandhi
	





--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3