[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?



On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think Dave's recommendation of the MIT/X11 license, though he
> didn't call it by that name, is preferable, because it sticks closer
> to the legal scope of copyright law.

Could be. They're slightly different of course, and I'm not well
equiped to argue whether the terms of the BSD license step outside of
the boundaries able to be enforced from copyright law.

> Publicity rights are not within the scope of copyright law.  The
> right to use people's names or likenesses to promote things is not
> assumed to attach to copyright licenses in the first place.

I'd hope so, but you never know these days.[1]

Regardless, their idea is that if you then used their names, it gives
their lawyers an extra stick to beat you with, beyond just using the
standard slander/libel laws. [Plus, they get to bring in the FBI to
track you down.]


Don Armstrong
1: [rant deleted]
-- 
Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be
running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to
repetitive music.

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: pgpknrRX5JMkX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: