> From: [...] goran.krampe at bluefish.se
> I would hardly say that Debian's decision is based on FUD. If that is
> what you mean.
> They got scared of a clause, and for all I know for good reasons.

You couldn't have better expressed my exact point.  They got scared of a
clause.  They may not know what it means, but the amount of heat (and very
little light) coming off the IP licensing/ownership/fair use/... topic at
the moment scared them.

They may have good reasons in practise, as the clause may make a difference.
They may have no reasons in practise, as the clause may make no difference.
*Nobody knows*.  Not the lawyers writing the licenses, not the lawyers
reading and interpreting the licenses, not the courts, not the developers
writing the code, not the companies releasing the code, not the companies
and individuals wishing to use the code.  It's all up for grabs.

This leads to uncertainty about the licensing position, doubt about whether
a license allows one to do what one wishes with the code, and fear of
getting prosecuted and - correctly or incorrectly, or neither as it's
impossible to determine correctness at present - punished for what may or
may not be a misinterpretation.  OK, that's UDF, not FUD, but I think my
point stands.

One school of thought is then 'why change the license from one ill-defined
set of words to another when it may make no difference?'

Another school of thought is then 'let us standardise on one of the existing
community licenses, as we then have the protection of being part of a larger
constituency with more influence when [not if] obviously nonsensical
judgements are handed down by the courts.'

		- Peter