On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > * Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
>> chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the terms, many courts
>> will interpret it in a way that privileges the licensee, regardless of
>> the fact that copyright licenses are to be interpreted restrictively
>> (at least in Brazilian law). And IANAL ;-)
> ---
> Hmm. In such a suit, however, the user would not be "the licensee" and
> would not be a party to the suit - some author would be the plaintiff
> and would be suing someone for doing something in violation of the
> license that author granted - that is, the *defendant* would be the
> licensee who would get the benefit of the doubt...
Yes. And so justice is made. Licensor gets to pick the license,
licensee gets the benefit of the doubt. What's the 'however' about?
Was this not obvious?
---
Sorry - I thought you were saying ambiguity would be resolved in favor
of the user. If you meant in favor of the licensee (regardless of that
limiting the user's rights), then I agree.
scott
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
