On 5/23/06, Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/23/06, Patrick W. Barnes <nman64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I can see where you would get that idea, but it isn't the case. > > In the future, you should also avoid referring to draft documentation, > especially for legal issues. The canonical reference is in the Legal section > of the wiki. Since it is a draft, Ive made referrence to it. If till now, there is something wrong about it we can can change before it is made final. :)
Hmmm, Mark Webbink should probably give us a quick law lesson if he has the chance. I remember getting a quick lesson years ago by another RH counsel about licensing.. but I have slept a lot since then, and I could be stickign 20 things together in the wrong order. What I recall is that there are some issues about referencing draft documents in a licensing deal unless the items are labeled correctly and that both items have a clause saying that the party righting the license has the right to change the license without notification (and party B is bound by those changes). If not someone who licenses there stuff under a broken draft can use it and not be covered under any fixes. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
