Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:44:09 -0500 | From | "Scott Preece" <> | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| |
On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <sepreece@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > * Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |