For Approval: The Simplified BSD License

[David Woolley]

Rick Moen wrote:

> It doesn't matter that literal-minded computerists think they see

For open source licences, it very much matters what the computerist 
thinks, because it is normally they that have to choose and interpret 
and obey the licence.  This is also increasingly the case for 
proprietary licences as they tend to be including more and more onerous 
clauses that only the technician can really know whether or not they are 
being obeyed.

> conflicts between the two.  What matters is that judges (and people with
> at least a passing acquaintance with the traditions of copyright law 
> will read the situation as intended.

I agree that they will realise that the phrase is being used without 
meaning, but I think they will then read the rest of the licence in the 
context of having been written by someone that cut and paste codes their 
legal documents, and therefore be more likely to give the benefit of 
doubt against the author for other parts of the licence.

As an aside, I've often thought that imposing some of the concepts of 
structured programming onto legal documents would leave them less open 
to interpretation.  In particular, the exact scope of and's and or's 
would be clear.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.