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

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

MJ Ray wrote:

> On 2004-06-03 02:19:55 +0100 Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>> If they really meant to "steal" the work, then the whole license may
>> be invalid.  In which case, Debian has no permission to distribute at
>> all.  So I think a clarification is definitely in order.
> Why? What form should such a clarification request take? "Are you a
> gibbering fool who interprets the licence in an obscure,
> counter-intuitive, absurd manner that is impossible in any
> jurisdiction we've heard about yet?"

Well, actually, I only know that copyright assignments need to be signed and
in writing in the *US*; I have no reason to think that an "all your
derivative works are belong to us" is invalid anywhere else.  I wouldn't be
in the least surprised if it was valid.

> seems the appropriate form to me, 
> but is hardly diplomatic.

"Do you mean to claim copyright on other people's work based on yours, or
just to retain your copyright on the portions of your work which they used? 
The wording is unclear to us, sorry."

> We should seek this clarification from all holders of copyrights
> affecting debian. Any of them might interpret their licence in an
> invalid way by redefining the words.
> Seriously, was there ever been a successful claim of copyright
> assignment on the basis of one of these clauses?

I don't know.  If there was even one, I would be worried.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: