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

Re: Implicit granting of rights?

Frank Küster wrote:
> Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@web.de> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 15:14 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>>> ,----
>>> | %%% Copyright (C) 1994 Aloysius G. Helminck. All rights reserved. 
>>> | %%% Permission is granted to to customize the declarations in this 
>>> | %%% file to serve the needs of your installation. However, no permission
>>> | %%% is granted to distribute a modified version of this file under 
>>> | %%% its original name. 
>>> `----
> That would be just on the right side of the border set by DFSG #4 (note
> that it's a TeX input file, so it is both source and used form), but

No, it falls just on the wrong side; licenses can restrict the name of
the *work*, as in the human-parsable name, but filenames serve as a
functional component of a work.  This issue came up with the previous
version of the LPPL.

For example, would you accept as DFSG-free a license which said you must
change the SONAME of a library if you changed the library?  That would
mean you could not legally create a compatible work.

>>> But it doesn't even allow use - don't know whether this is implicitly
>>> granted? 
>> I would vote for implicitly granted usage rights, but IANAL.
> Can we in fact assume such implicit granting of rights?  It seems logic
> to me, because there are no "needs of your installation" if all I may do
> is meditate over the contents of the file.  But I'm not sure whether
> what seems logic to me is logic in IP law...

Generally, I think you can assume the right to *use* something.
However, you can't assume the right to modify or distribute, and this
license does not grant any permission to distribute.  It also seems to
restrict which modifications you can make; among other things, you can't
modify it to serve the needs of *other* installations, or modify
anything other than declarations.  It may well *intend* to grant the
right to distribute (unmodified or with another filename) and the right
to all possible modifications, but it doesn't appear to actually do so.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: