Re: The new apache license

["Kent R. Spillner" <kent@zerosphere.org>]

gabe f wrote:
> you don't have to be a lawyer to understand contracts, but you do
> have to be patient, diligent, able to do some logic operations
> and substitute variables (eg. terms like "the Work"). If that's not
> you, then defer.

Have you learned nothing from SCO's shenanigans?  If law were logical
we wouldn't need courts.  Instead, anyone with an agenda and deep
pockets is a threat to unsuspecting software projects.

Think of a license as you would software: simplicity is often a very
important element of security.  The more verbiage in a license, the
greater the possibility of ambiguity, the greater the opportunity for
exploitation.

That's why people like the ISC license.  Its short and sweet, says what
it means, means what it says, and doesn't fuck around with words or
grammar.

>> Might there be some small phrase missing or present, subject to
>> (mis/re/)interpretation?  
> 
> That _is_ what lawyers and judges and legislators are for. And the
> precious BSD license is not immune from that. 

Say what now?

Ahhhh...  damn it!  You're just a troll.  Congrats, you had me fooled
there for a sec.  I'm such a loser. =(

(FYI, Theo has previously mentioned that he discusses software licenses
with lawyers.  Search the archives.  Or start here:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=105521759525315&w=2

If he's not worried about "the precious BSD license" its because he
doesn't need to be.)

-Kent