Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On Jun 4, 2004, at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not
everyone lives in the US.
You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...
I'm not saying the originating region matters;
It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to
mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license,
we can be pretty sure it isn't trying to be a copyright assignment,
because it can't be.
Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright
assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO,
sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the
copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no.
I'm saying that a copyright
assignment clause might be valid in some regions.
FYI, after much googling I think I might of finally found one...
(Yeah, google cache because their server seems dead...)
I'm not sure if a license would count as "a written indication of such
(I'd be cautious about that, too--any "this clause is non-free but
so let's ignore it" reasoning should be taken very carefully, and with
understanding that it may be ignoring the wishes of the author.)