Subject: Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:52:39 -0500
Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:52:39 -0500
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Woolley (
>> 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

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]