[License-discuss] Permissive but anti-patent license
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Mon Dec 31 16:37:55 UTC 2012
John Funnell scripsit:
> I believe it should be possible to restrict usage via copyright
> license conditions just as it is possible to restrict almost anything.
> E.g. I could put a clause that says licensee must be vegetarian.
> Anyone eating meat would not have copyright license benefits and could
> be held for infringement. Of course this would not be true open source
> but the point is that the copyright license is a mechanism to impose
> restrictions outside of copyright law.
I think it very unlikely, however, that a judge would uphold such
irrelevant and unreasonable (not to say whimsical) license conditions in
what is basically a public license. I have discussed this in previous
years under the name of the "moose [excrement]" license. No matter what,
if your license mentions moose excrement, that clause will probably
There is, however, the Chicken Dance License:
For several reasons given in the article, it is not in fact open source.
Values of beeta will give rise to dom! John Cowan
(5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you tried http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to rename '.' or '..' entries; see cowan at ccil.org
More information about the License-discuss