Hans-Jürgen Koch writes:

quoted text
> No. Credible licenses should be simple like physical laws. Newton's law
> is expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. That's why it's
> still valid, and you still learn it at school although meanwhile people
> know that there are limitations to it.
>
> If you come up with a new version of a license every year, you will only
> weaken it. Please note that quantum mechanics is _not_ such a hole-plugging
> addition to Newton's law. It's a new simple physical law, expressed in terms
> of a single simple mathematical equation that contains the old law as a
> border case. If that were not the case, it would have never been accepted.

This is an excellent example of how engineers tend to mis-analyze
legal issues.  In law, neither simple wording nor interpretation is so
simple or so mechanical as the things engineers prefer to work with.

Take an example: "Thou shalt not kill".  Very clear, but also very
problematic in that it does not address military conquests (which were
apparently approved by that law's drafter), self-defense, or a number
of other cases.

There are always grey areas between what is explicitly addressed and
what is not.  Courts interpret laws and precedent in ways that make
life (and license or contract writing) more unpredictable.  Wishing
otherwise will not make a simple license unambiguous.  If those areas
of ambiguity are exploited enough, the perceived cost of having a hole
will exceed the perceived cost of plugging it.

Michael Poole
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/