<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Richard Fontana <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org" target="_blank">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 04:40:03PM -0500, Pamela Chestek wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div class="im">> Para. 5: "When distributing a Covered Work, You may not impose further<br>
> restrictions on the exercise of [rights in] _the grants given for_ the Covered<br>
> Work [granted under this License]." Just tightening up the language a little.<br>
> It was the word "rights" that bothered me, I don't think the licensee has<br>
> "rights" but rather has permission to do what otherwise he or she could not do<br>
.<br>
<br>
</div>Any 'rights' language in copyleft-next (there are actually several<br>
uses of it) is basically a holdover from GPLv2/GPLv3. I assume your<br>
botheredness would extend to those other uses too -- I admit that I've<br>
been bothered by the uses of "rights" myself and have toyed with<br>
replacing them with "permissions" in all cases.<br>
<br>
Then again, I believe I've seen "rights" used similarly in certain<br>
'plain-English' proprietary software consumer-oriented licenses; there<br>
may be a view that it's a more natural way of expressing something<br>
that technically isn't really a "right".<br>
<br>
The use of "rights" in the GPL also clearly reflects a kind of natural<br>
law theory of software freedom. One sees this particularly in the<br>
various GPL Preambles which express the view that proprietary software<br>
licenses take away freedom that software users would otherwise<br>
have. This view is understandable when you consider the legal and<br>
cultural origins of the GPL.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> </div></div></blockquote><div style>Yes, all of those reasons make sense. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but mentioned it out of a desire to attain rigor in language. But sometimes rigor only introduces confusion, which might be the case here. I don't think "rights" will be misunderstood or misinterpreted.<br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style>Pam</div></div></div></div>