Question on OSD #5

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

>Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> Look guys, there's no difference between what I was thinking about
>> and what was already approved under the Jabber Open Source License
>> Section 5:

>At the moment, that page (http://opensource.org/licenses/jabberpl.php)
>is broken on the website so I can't verify your quote. 
 
Here is a working URL for you to verify.  Google is your friend when you 
doubt someone's veracity or competence in using cut and paste.
 
http://www.jabber.org/about/josl.shtml
 
>It does say that license is deprecated, so I don't think the OSI would be eager to
>approve a license that attempted to do the same thing.

Not every license with some of the same legal disclaimers are attempting 
to do the same thing.  There were a few problems with JOSL which is why they 
deprecated it rather than fixed it with a new version.
 
I have not made an exhaustive search of licenses to see if someone else uses
this kind of disclaimer.  I've only looked in detail at the licenses that I have to 
comply with.
 
The deprecation of JOSL has little to do with the value or need of such an
allowance.

>> Any corporate or government project that can get a statute or
>> government regulation enacted to steal my code is part of the
>> Illuminati and is welcome to do whatever they want with it.

>Are you /really/ claiming the government never changes the law for their
>own benefit?

>Matt Flaschen

No Matt, I'm claiming no such thing.  I'm saying they aren't going to bother
over something as trivial as my code.  Sorry the humor misdirected you to
such a conclusion.
 
Nigel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071213/988194a4/attachment.html>