Uniform terminology (Re: UnitedLinux and "open source")

[I.R.Maturana]

> It is time for the software community to arrive at a consensus on 
> terminology used in licenses.  We should cease to behave like 
> characters 
[...]
> then, irrespective of whether you discussed or even actually 
> knew of the 
> actual detailed terms, the court will fix responsibility on 
> the basis of 
> "implied terms" doctrine.  The way terms are implied now, 
> based on names 
> of contracts. (like FoB, CIF, etc).  This is possible only if 
> there is a 
> industry-wide agreement on terminology.  Therefore, it is 
> time for us to 
> set aside such "elitist" mentalities, (if it exists at all) 
> and settle 
> on some standard terminology.
> 
> With Regards,
> Mahesh T Pai.

Agree. I strongly suggest to consider also a solution where 
contract models are "translatable". 
That is, fully enforceable in all languages.


Natxo (Is A Name)
[I.R.Maturana -- Trad En>[ES<>FR] - http://www.in3activa.net ]
PLT/LPT License: http://www.in3activa.org/doc/en/LPT-EN.html





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