[License-discuss] Legal use of software

[Lawrence Rosen]

J. Ritchey wrote:

Because the license is designed to be short, it doesn't define terms (eg:
"lawful"). Instead it binds to a jurisdiction to set precedence for how a
term may be interpreted. For example the Copyright Act itself uses the terms
lawful, unlawful, and lawfully. So does the Criminal Code. The term lawful
is also used in the 

Constitution Acts going back as far as 1867.

 

Pam Chestek then wrote:

Others have pointed out a different interpretation of the "lawful" term,
which is that one cannot use the software in ways that break the law. This
is a clear violation of OSD6, no discrimination against fields of endeavor.

 

I don't know why we keep inventing new ways to say what old licenses say
much more briefly. This language is over 18 years old, from AFL 3.0:

 

15) Right to Use. You may use the Original Work in all ways not otherwise
restricted or conditioned by this License or by law, and Licensor promises
not to interfere with or be responsible for such uses by You.

 

This language is consistent, works in all jurisdictions, and protects the
licensor also.

 

/Larry Rosen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210227/21848c86/attachment.html>