From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <820bc1260607150953p3acbb7d7gdcbcbf06fc3833f6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:53:05 -0500 From: "Eric Smith" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] LPL Section 3C In-Reply-To: <39010.69.21.205.10.1152976084.squirrel@69.21.205.10> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <39010.69.21.205.10.1152976084.squirrel@69.21.205.10> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 80ed3604-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Personally, the only time I read those is for entertainment. But the way I see it, those licenses are for lawyers to write and lawyers to read -- something to keep them busy. After all, the United States has 6% of the world's population but 70% of the world's lawyers. They need _something_ to do. But these licenses aren't intended for anyone else (the way I see it) -- it's like this: if it's posted on the web, freely downloadable without paying, then it's yours to have and do with as you please. If someone doesn't want you to have it then they shouldn't have posted it. In the case of your submissions, if someone doesn't want it they don't have to take it. How can they expect you to know how to apply that legalese license to your work when you are not a lawyer? How could anyone (you, me, anyone else) be expected to read one line of a license unless they are a mouthpiece? In a court of law I would just say, "I don't know -- it's not written in English". Just ignore them all.