Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> MR>Why do you consider these a replacement for articles 15-23
>> MR>instead of a supplement? Have I misunderstood article 69a(4)?
>> It is irrelevant. Even if articles 15-23 is still valid for
>> software, they adds a very small additional restriction for users
>> comparatively to 69c. Contrary is not true.
>Depends on the licence, surely?
Well, already this (dependency on licence, ability to get
_less_ rights by signing wrong license than without licence at all)
is major change.
>69c seems to be mostly clarifications for programs (not software in
>general) and 15-23 still stand.
No. You can see that in generic case was needed 8 loooong
articles to carefully define _limits_ of exclusive rights, nothing
else. 69c does not recognise any limits at all, everything declared
as exclusive right.
And do not forget about specific right to rent.
> 1. Software is treated under basically the same law;
Yes, it still a copyright, not a patent, not a tradesecret.
> 2. I need to check this is still the same in the latest version.
You hope for the better copyright law? 8-(