Re: definition of "use"

[Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com>]

On 4/26/05, James William Pye <x@jwp.name> wrote:

> Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
> of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
> and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
> might provide within its single, compound sentence.
> 
> This license hangs on the idea that the definition of the word 'use' in
> the context of copyright law is as follows:
> 
>        6: (law) the exercise of the legal right to enjoy the benefits
>           of owning property; "we were given the use of his boat"
>           [syn: {enjoyment}]
>        (From WordNet 2.0)
> (dict.org, dict use, also google'ing will reveal it in other areasof the
> net)

That's fine, but as you probably do realize, the word "use" is too
wide and too unspecific.  Having a license that doesn't state
specifically what rights are or aren't granted is due to bring
misunderstandings.

If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of
owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind
of hard to 'own'), then you should say that.

You could go on dealing what does the copyright law defines and what
it doesn't, but since there's not one but many different copyright
laws (every country has it's own) it's always better to be as specific
as possible.

So, my suggestion is: rephrase the license to convey to every person
the meaning you want it to convey.  Then the problem ends.

-- 
Besos,
Marga