Re: For thoughts: fair license
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 05:00 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> This paragraph reaches a level of
> opacity normally requiring ten pages of licesne text.
Even looking at glass at the right angle and with the right lighting can
make it look opaque. ;)
> 1. What are the "rights granted by authorship"? I know of none;
Specifically, I would imagine that this depends on your jurisdiction.
Title 17, U.S.C. gives a list of exclusive rights. Berne specifies
rights throughout; iirc, some depend on the kind of works produced.
http://www.google.com/search?q=copyright+right+granted+by+authorship
If there is a desire to answer the question, specifically, I think one
would be willing to do the research. That first link there has a link to
the exclusive rights listed in Title 17. All of this is not as far away
as most seem think.
Besides that, a normal person would probably ask themselves questions
such as "Does an author have the right to read his/her own works?", well
most certainly.
Or, "Does an author have the right to modify his/her own works?", well
I'd figure as much. I would imagine they could come to successful
conclusions with little difficulty.
> there are rights I have by virtue of being human
I hear that may depend on where you live. ;)
> But it'd certainly be clearer in all of them to just say what you mean.
When I wish to specify that there are no limits, how can I be more
specific than to say, "there are no limits"?
All restrictions(that I know of) of copyrighted works are based on the
exclusive rights granted to the author. By merely granting the exercise
of those rights, it should be enough to take away all limitations.
> Oh, and this is a big lawyer-bomb. It's fairly easy for some one (or
> his heirs, etc.) to decide to un-free the work by arguing a limited
> meaning of "the rights granted by authorship". For example, they
> could argue the only right granted by authorship is to have the work
> properly attributed, and thus that no permission to do much anything
> has really been granted.
I really don't think so. First, it says "rights" implying more than one.
Second, and more importantly, I think Berne/title 17 well establishes
what those rights are. 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! Heh. That's likely to not only get you "further", but
be more interesting. That would certainly fail as well after/if it is
discovered this ancestor openly allowed people to use his/her software
without making explicit requests for compensation or demands to "stop
taking my software from the server that is publicly accessable and has
prominent links to the software that I posted on the server for public
access". Heh.
> 2. "that this instrument is retained". That phrase just confuses the
> issue; normal people don't refer to documents as instruments. Use
> "license" instead.
Hrm, I was wanting to make it clear that any associated information must
be included, so I may actually try to expand on this. Anyways,
instrument is fine. You seem to think that people are incapable of
making use of a dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=instrument
I think it's obvious that number six applies to this context.
> 3. Your disclaimer may not be sufficent. IANAL. However, since every
> disclaimer I have seen produced by a lawyer is much more thorough,
> I'd guess there is a good reason for that.
Sufficient for what precisely? The only thing that I wish to make clear
with that disclaimer is that there is no guarantee. I can't think of a
more clear way to state it with regards to those works. Although, I may
look into this more to get a clearer idea as to any technicalities
involved with disclaimers. If anyone has some references or starting
points, I'd be interested in having them.
> Read them more closesly; they are quite "open-ended":
MIT *maybe*, but I'm not at all convinced about BSD.
> Permission is hereby granted ... to deal in the Software without
> restriction, including without limitation the rights [list of rights],
> and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so,
> subject to the following conditions.... (MIT License)
>
> Notice 'without restriction' and 'including without limitation'. The
> list is there to make the license crystal clear; that is a good thing.
> It in no way limits the scope of the license grant.
Heh, let's treat MIT in like form.
"deal in the Software"? I haven't seen that in my readings of Berne and
title 17. No specific definition that I know of. 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.
Now about the list of rights granted in MIT. Use in what way? Copy to
where or to whom? Modify in what manner and with what? Merge with what?
Publish to where? Distribute to whom? Sublicense with what? Sell copies
of the Software for how much and to whom? Ridiculous, yes. Although,
just carrying the tune that most people seem to singing; "best to be
specific".
All in all, thank you for your thoughts. =)
--
Regards, James William Pye
Reply to: