Section 3.1 grants two permissions, both of which run directly counter to the IP laws of any jurisdiction I'm aware of. IANAL, but I can't see this standing up to any court challenge, anywhere in the world or any lawyer suggesting that their client rely on it.
3.1 has awkward wording. I had to read it twice to understand it. It's saying *with respect the licensed work*, you are given permission to do whatever you want, to do anything that is protected by copyright on the work.
It would probably be better written as:
-- Licensor grants You the world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive permission to: Copy the work Distribute copies Distribute derived works Any other action protected by copyright on the work
The above permissions include a patent license under any patent co
Unenforceable (Score:4, Interesting)
"with respect to the work" (Score:4, Insightful)
3.1 has awkward wording. I had to read it twice to understand it. It's saying *with respect the licensed work*, you are given permission to do whatever you want, to do anything that is protected by copyright on the work.
It would probably be better written as:
--
Licensor grants You the world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive permission to:
Copy the work
Distribute copies
Distribute derived works
Any other action protected by copyright on the work
The above permissions include a patent license under any patent co
Re:"with respect to the work" (Score:2)