On 10/15/2012 11:21 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
Pursuant to an email and pull request I'd like to send about the
of "shall", I'm trying to grok Sec. 10.4.
Is the idea to remedy the line of cases that suggest that licensees
are not protected by 17 USC 117, and particularly 17 USC 117(a)(1)?
(See Part 3 of http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9093856475999715707
for something of a summary of these cases.)
Or is it something else? If so, what is it?
I wasn't consciously thinking of 17 USC 117. Rather, this is a
generalization of something in GPLv2 and GPLv3. GPLv2 says "The act of
running the Program is not restricted", and GPLv3 says "This License
explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified
Program." copyleft-next 10.4 extends this "unlimited permission" to
Does anyone think that's bad on a policy level? I suppose 10.4 could
be worded better.