Subject: Re: request for approval of APOSSL
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:23:41 -0500 (EST)

> in pseudocode
> clause 4
> if (haveNoPermissionToUseterm("pronoic"))) {
>         if (useterm("pronoic")) {
>                 noProblem();
>         } else {
>                 notInTheSpiritOfIt();
>         }
> } else {
>         noProblem();
> }

Look, if you have no permission to use the term "pronoic"
then you may not legally use it.  You can't end up at
the first "noProblem()" statement, because you have already
asserted you don't have permission to use the term.

I dislike pseudo code analogies when it comes to law and
licenses.  (You understand Godel's proofs, so I don't have to
tell you why.)  I don't think you have pseudocoded version
1.2 either.

I don't think version 1.2 has clarified much, and although
the wording problems are different, there are still

Courts don't take "unreachable clauses" lightly.  They
will do something unpredictable, but they will resolve it.
No developer wants to expose themselves to unpredictable
licensing clauses.

Since you made such a major mistake in version 1.0,
I am finding it hard to pay attention to 1.1 and 1.2
which you produced within hours.  You must not have
run it by anyone else.

Everyone is busy.  This list is not a controller for a
genetic algorithm which is writing licenses.

Be careful.  I am beginning to think that your interest is
playing a game with license discuss, and that you have no
interest in OSI approval.  


license-discuss archive is at