?sthetic Permissive License - For Approval

Sean B. Palmer sean at miscoranda.com
Sat Dec 29 19:39:22 UTC 2007

On Dec 29, 2007 7:22 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:

>  > This alone is not sufficient:
> Do you realize that you're telling a lawyer that he doesn't know
> the law?

Insufficient for my requirements, not for the law.

It would be sufficient for me if Larry meant that:

a) people wishing to modify and redistribute a file never have to
include the whole New BSD/MIT licenses themselves even though the
former, for example, says "Redistributions of source code must retain
the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer"; and

b) the two suggested lines are themselves protected by the New BSD/MIT
licenses even though these licenses only, as far as I understand them,
require unmodified inclusion of their own texts and not texts which
merely *reference* them.

But I think my interpretation that he didn't mean to say that either
a) or b) are true, let alone both, is reasonable.

Perhaps he, or someone qualified, can clarify how his suggested
solution meets my requirements, or how my requirements are invalid or
can be satisfied in other ways? That's all I'm seeking!

Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/

More information about the License-review mailing list