BSDL/GPL v3 compatibility

[Mahesh T. Pai]

Alexander Terekhov,

Do you really understand what you are replying to?

You are replying to:-

<begin quote>


</end quote>

No, *I* did not forget to put anything there; it is the person who
started this thread.

I shudder to think about you will [mis]represent what I said here on some other
thread to some other person?

Alexander Terekhov said on Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 04:31:42PM +0200,:

 > On 8/25/07, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at linpro.no> wrote:
 > > "Chris Travers" <chris.travers at gmail.com> writes:
 > > > Hi all;
 > >
 > > That's a real stumper.  I'll have to think about it and get back to
 > > you.
 > 
 > http://opensourcelaw.biz/publications/papers/BScott_BSD_The_Dark_Horse_of_Open_Source_070112lowres.pdf
 > 
 > "What is the legal effect of being required to retain "this list of
 > conditions". Are they just there for show? Do they have some other
 > effect? In determining this, a court will look to the objective
 > meaning of the clause and, potentially, the objective intention of the
 > original licensor. In this case, the actual subjective intention of
 > the party granting the license (and what they thought the words meant)
 > is irrelevant.8 What the court is looking to determine is what the
 > reasonable person (ie an idealized and dispassionate citizen who is
 > called on to assess the scope of the license) would make of the
 > words.9
 > 
 > Consider first the warranty disclaimer. If there is a requirement to
 > "retain" a copy of the warranty disclaimer in a redistribution, is a
 > court likely to say the warranty disclaimer is intended to be
 > effective or not? For example, could the disclaimer be retained but
 > framed by a redistributor in such a way that the disclaimer had no
 > legal force?10 It is likely that the reasonable person would read the
 > license and think that the licensor intended that the warranty
 > disclaimer was to be retained without qualification. A similar
 > argument could be made about clause 5 (which prohibits endorsements).
 > 
 > On this analysis, the warranty disclaimer travels with the
 > distribution and the redistributor has no ability to qualify it. The
 > question then becomes what about the other clauses? What about clause
 > 2 which permits "redistribution and use" of the source form? If, in
 > the case of the warranty disclaimer, the objective intention of the
 > requirement to "retain" or "reproduce" the warranty disclaimer is that
 > the warranty disclaimer cannot, by the manner of its retention, be
 > limited in its application or scope. Why should the same reasoning not
 > apply to the terms in the "list of conditions"? Moreover, if the
 > disclaimer and endorsement prohibition are operative as conditions,
 > what basis can there be for arguing that the other clauses are not?
 > 
 > If the other license terms are operative, then the combined effect of
 > clauses 2 and 3 is that redistribution of the source form must occur
 > on the terms of the NBSDL.
 > 
 > [...]
 > 
 > REPRODUCTION IN SOURCE FORM WITH MODIFICATION..."
 > 
 > regards,
 > alexander.

-- 
 Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/