[License-review] ESA Permissive PL 2.3

[Josh Berkus]

On 10/29/19 6:06 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> Several times you mentioned changing the FAQs rather than amending the
> language of the license itself. As a US lawyer, this is troubling to me
> because under US law (1) an explanation extrinsic to the license would
> only be considered under very limited circumstances and (2) even if it
> was considered, it is only the Licensor's intent, not the license
> /steward's /intent that matters. So where the licensor is not the ESA,
> any statements by the ESA would be irrelevant.
> 
> I understand, however, that this license will be construed under the law
> of a member state of the EU, not US law. How would information in the
> FAQ be used to construe the meaning of the license under EU law?

Even if it's interpreted differently under EU law, as a developer I
would not be willing to touch a license whose FAQ apparently differed
from the license text.

-- 
Josh Berkus