On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Jun 15, 2007, "Scott Preece" <sepreece@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/15/07, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > * Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's correct, but with a catch: since the contract or license is
> >> chosen by the licensor, in case of ambiguity in the terms, many courts
> >> will interpret it in a way that privileges the licensee, regardless of
> >> the fact that copyright licenses are to be interpreted restrictively
> >> (at least in Brazilian law).  And IANAL ;-)
> > ---
>
> > Hmm. In such a suit, however, the user would not be "the licensee" and
> > would not be a party to the suit - some author would be the plaintiff
> > and would be suing someone for doing something in violation of the
> > license that author granted - that is, the *defendant* would be the
> > licensee who would get the benefit of the doubt...
>
> Yes.  And so justice is made.  Licensor gets to pick the license,
> licensee gets the benefit of the doubt.  What's the 'however' about?
> Was this not obvious?
---

Sorry - I thought you were saying ambiguity would be resolved in favor
of the user. If you meant in favor of the licensee (regardless of that
limiting the user's rights), then I agree.

scott
-
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/