Re: Re: For thoughts: fair license
> I think you are deeply confused as to the nature of copyright.
That's nice.
> You didn't say that. And you could be more specific by saying what
> isn't limited.
It was an example.
> > I really don't think so.
> Well, you lost that court battle.
What court battle? How so? Because you said so? Why did you snip out the
part where I say Berne and Title 17 specifies the rights granted by
authorship?
> > You'd be much better off claiming your ancestor
> > was insane for giving away his intellectual property, and could not have
> > possibly understood what the license meant due to the fact that he spent
> > so many hard hours creating the works, and all those hard hours, for
> > what? For nothing!
> It's worked enough times.
By that conclusion, I would surmise that this attack would be effective
against other OSS licenses as well. Notice that the reasoning behind the
assumption that there was a failure to understand the license was due to
the fact that all that work was done for nothing. I imagine this is not
what you meant to imply. ;)
> Court battles have been fought and lost over such clauses in the
> past. Your clause merely says that you aren't providing a warranty,
> this does not affect, eg, statutory rights under UK law. You're still
> providing the implicit warranty of merchantability, matching the
> description, and fitness for a given purpose, and you are liable in
> the limited fashion they imply. Criminally so if a mistake on your
> part leads to serious injury or loss of life. You'd get a reduced
> sentence since you only bear partial, limited responsibility, but you
> *would* be convicted.
I'm still providing implicit warranties? How so? How is an implicit
warranty not a warranty? The disclaimer reads, "THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT
WARRANTY", not *a* warranty. Nonetheless, that isn't to say that I don't
understand that SOME warranties in SOME jurisdictions MAY need to be
EXPLICITY disclaimed in a specific way. It also isn't to say that I
don't understand that SOME implicit warranties CANNOT be disclaimed.
(btw, I'm not saying you are wrong here, in the UK, specifically
explicit disclamation of the implicit warranty of merchantibility may
very well be necessary.)
Anyways, ISTM that the effectiveness of any disclaimer is probably
dependent on the jurisdiction and on the kind of works that are
released.
This is an area that I plan to do further study in. Again, if you know
any resources, references thereto would be appreciated.
> Go buy a legal dictionary. Since you're obsessive-compulsive about US
> law, which is a common-law country, it's pretty much a waste of time
> to sit staring at the statute. Common-law countries don't have any
> basic principles written into the statute at all.
Thus supporting my point that it's *arguably vague*? And I was already
considering purchasing a legal dictionary. Would be nice if one were
publically accessible online.
Sure, sit staring at Berne isn't useful; however, I imagine reading it
would be.
> > So what on earth do
> > they mean, specifically? Does that mean, I can print the material to
> > multiple pieces of rectangular paper and play poker with my buddies
> > without restriction? It's arguably vague.
> Sure. Who cares? It means all the stuff we care about, plus the vague
> lunatic stuff that you're so eager to permit.
It wasn't so much a question, more an extreme example of how it could be
skewed.
> The list of permissions is legally explicit. I can't be bothered to
> dissect your poor cariacture; it's wrong.
Thanks for your opinion!
> Law is not vague fluff
I never said it was, and any implications toward the conclusion that
that is an idea that I hold true probably came from examples of how the
meaning of words can easily be skewed. It was my hopes that such
examples might provide some insight as to why I don't find most of the
arguments about potential litigation due to semantics useful, as
anything could be skewed into possibly meaning something
else(specifically thinking of Anthony's argument about potential
litigation with regards to the hypothetical argument that it meant only
one right.).
> you suck at it.
Thanks for your opinion!
--
Regards, James William Pye
Reply to: