Was reviewing this for other reasons, and:
1. Sec. 2 should really not be section 2. Sections should be ordered
by importance/likelihood of use; current Sec. 2 is likely to be rarely
invoked or applicable, whereas Sec. 3 will likely feature in every
attempt at license interpretation. I'd probably move Sec. 2 to Sec. 8,
as the current Sec. 8 will eventually apply to all publications under
2. The "cease to apply" language is vague to the untutored reader.
Does that mean you can no longer Distribute? (Sec. 3 begins: "You may
Distribute...") I know what you're trying to do, but I don't see that
the language of Sec. 2 actually achieves your purpose. As a very rough
cut at a solution, I might go with "then the license granted in Sec. 1
is no longer subject to the conditions of Sec. 3-6", which is not
elegant but more effective than the current language.
3. Is it your opinion that the last sentence of Sec. 5 is actually
necessary? Or is it mere clarification?
4. Is "network" in "network location" (Sec. 6) redundant, given that
this is always a location for "providing network access" and hence
always a network location? (Two fewer words!)
5. Sec. 8: why do these conditions no longer apply only to Me? Isn't
this the case for everyone? Also, the conditions might better be said
to apply to the license grant, not to a person (though I can't think
of any way to say that that leaves the resulting language clear to
6. "Termination disqualifies You from receiving new licenses covering My Work,"
I see your purpose here but would urge another look at the language
when you have a chance - this is much less elegantly worded than most
of the license. Unfortunately I have no good suggestions.
7. Definition of "Corresponding Source"- in (ii), should "the Covered
Work" be "the Object Code form" or "the Covered Work in Object Code
form"? As it currently stands I'm not clear that it is clear which
Covered Work is being referred to here. Also, in (iii), seems like the
version number should somehow be included in the actual requirement,
not just the example. Finally, also in (iii), the "and installing" is
vague - whose installation are we referring to here? Mine? Yours? Some
abstract default installation? Might be more clear if (ii) also
included a reference to installation, but that might not be sufficient
to fully clarify the issue.
Show replies by date