APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Woolley (david at djwhome.demon.co.uk):
> 
>> I think it is also an ad hominem and an obscure one at that.
> 
> Apologies for any excessive erudition.

Ad hominem attacks usually aren't considered erudite.

> Actually, I'm suggesting that members of this mailing list, including
> but not limited to Mr Woolsey, should not raise objections to licences
> that posit judges unable or unwilling to read with, and intelligently
> apply, context.  Licences are a matter of law, not compiler design.  
> 

What I've been positing has nothing to do with judges.  You seem to
forget that regular laypeople must read, understand, and correctly
interpret licenses.  I am concerned about *their* ability to recognize
void  or confusing clauses in the licenses.  By the time a license ends
up in front of a judge, something (though not necessarily the license)
has gone terribly wrong; we want to avoid that, not use it as a trump card.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061112/296a3f5d/attachment.sig>