On 22 Nov 2002 at 10:59:19 US EST (GMT-0500) The Hon. Branden Robinson <email@example.com> expounded as follows > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:36:20AM +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De > Vitis wrote: >> Copyright (C) Landon Curt Noll, Simon Cooper, Peter Seebach >> and Leonid A. Broukhis, 2000. >> All Rights Reserved. Permission for personal, educational or >> non-profit use is granted provided this copyright and notice are >> included in its entirety and remains unaltered. All other uses must >> receive prior permission from the contest judges. >> --- cut --- >> >> I'm a bit confused by the possible interpretation of "All other uses >> must receive prior permission from the contest judges": this sentence >> neither deny all other possible uses, nor it explicitly allows them. > > The default license policy for copyrighted works, at least in the > United States, is "All rights reserved." Any permissions not granted > in the license are withheld. There is an implicit use license which > automatically attaches to published works, but even this is under > assault in the U.S. with laws like the DMCA. > > The license is not DFSG-free. Redistribution is not permitted (DFSG > 1), modification is not permitted (DSFG 3) and it does not grant > permission for use in non-personal, non-educational, and for-profit > activities (DFSG 6). > <.sig snipped> I agree with Branden. I have mulled over the ioccc "license" for several years and come to the conclusion that it was written in such a way that A) casual downloaders could take the code and play with it, B) college profs could take the code and use it to 1) demonstrate the power of the C preprocessor and 2) show how NOT to code, and C) nobody else could do a damn thing with it without express permission. For a "no-fee/no-(express)-royalty 'license'" this buzzard is about as restrictive as it gets to be.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part