|
So, what you're saying is that I offered to help show people how to not violate the license? Is that what you're accusing me of? My god, that's quite a strong accusation to make.
I realize you have historically had a difficult time understanding this, but what the DIKU team says is not really relevant to the license itself. (and it's not certain, by any means, that the DIKU team owns the license. It's reasonably likely that if it went to court it'd turn out to be owned by the university, whom Hans & company are not representatives of.) Licenses stand on their own, and in American IP law at least, the onus is on the contract drafter to spell out what the terms of the contract are before the contract is executed. What the contract drafter says afterwards is no more relevant than what the contract accepter says afterwards. It's not as if Raymond Feist could speak up now and change the terms of the license he granted us now just because he felt he left something out of the license.
What you constantly insist on is that people follow provisions of the license that don't exist. You're welcome to do that, but there's no reason for people to care about your version of the license.
You're not interested in defending the rights of mud developers. You're interested in restricting their rights by trying to impose non-existent license terms on them.
--matt
|