Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> >I suppose there's some question here -- what does "a complete description"
> >mean? My point was that all license terms must be stated explicitly.
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 02:48:49PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No, in this you are wrong. Copyright notice is this:
> (C) Humberto Massa 2004
> Just this and nothing else.
> Not a license statement, nothing like that. Just the copyright symbol,
> the name of the copyright holder, and the year (so people know when your
> copyright will expire).
Right -- and if you do that, I have been granted no rights to make copies
of that work.
> In the movies, they generally show it as the last thing of the credits,
> with the year in roman numerals. In books, it's generally in the first
> (paper) page or in the last one.
> (C) Humberto Massa Movies MMIV.
> This is the *legal* definition of "Copyright notice", according to the
> Geneva Convention.
Sure, and since something like 30 years ago, you don't even have to have
the copyright notice placed on a work to retain exclusive copy rights.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with licensing terms.
> >However, if "a complete description of the licensing terms" means
> >something other than "all license terms must be stated explicitly"
> >then I don't see what contrast he is trying to draw.
> You said that putting copyright notices could be against some license
I did? Where?
> Or copyright by itself. It's not. Some free-or-semi-free license
> that permits you to modify the work (GPL certainly) permits you to put
> your copyright notices in the files you modified.
Now I'm lost.
I don't have a clue what you are talking about.