On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 18:38, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 09:31, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 09:03:33PM +0000, Jim Marhaus wrote: > > > > "Debian Legal summary of the X-Oz License" > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00229.html > > > > > > Clause 4 of the license posted at the start of this thread is, with the > > > execption of whos names it protects, word-for-word identical. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > Yes. Clause 3 is the GPL-incompatible non-free one. Clause 4 is standard > > boilerplate, found in many licenses (it's also superfluous, being > > written into copyright by default in US law). > > Can you please cite what part of US copyright law does that? > > To my knowledge, what you're referring to is actually part of the > common-law doctrine of "right of publicity"[1], which I've mentioned on > this list before[2]. > > In short, you doesn't have to become a copyright holder in the U.S. to > enjoy legal protections against people using your name or likeness in their > advertising without your consent. > > [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html > [2] Message-ID: <20040512085432.GG18044@deadbeast.net> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html Ah, okay. I misread your previous post and thought it was related to copyright law. Either way, it's a legal no-op, and does not result in a non-free license. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part