[Foundation-l] RfC: License update proposal

[Chad]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/1/22 Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >> It all boils down to how you define "reasonable", and that's usually
> >> left to laymen, not lawyers.
> >>
> >
> > Which is why I for one say shame on CC for using such crappy
> > phrasing. Essentially they're saying "require attribution, but what
> > form that attribution comes in is what author(s) deem to be
> > reasonable."
>
> It's what a jury deems reasonable, rather than the author(s), isn't it?
>
>
The author(s) set the terms. If it ends up in court, it would be
the judge/jury who decides if the author(s)' idea of 'reasonable'
is in fact reasonable.

Of course, this all depends on the court's idea of 'reasonable' too,
so we're back to the same issue :)

-Chad