Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?
"Sean B. Palmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Jan 1, 2008 10:39 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Firstoff, does the law allow removing or altering appropriate
> > copyright notices? I don't think so, but I'll leave this argument
> > to real lawyers...
> The argument against this is that some licenses, all those that have a
> Y in Column B of my survey, require this explicitly and some don't.
That doesn't seem to be an argument against Francesco's point at all.
A copyright license doesn't need to make anything explicit that is
already explicit in copyright law.
Some license authors may choose to make some requirements explicit
anyway, as a courtesy; but there is a huge body of requirement that
they omit from such licenses, that nevertheless continues to have
force of law.
> At the very least, a license that makes this point explicit makes me
> feel better that a requirement I care about is going to be noticed
> by people using my software.
I wonder how many other requirements that you care about in copyright
law are entirely unexamined because you've not seen them explicated in
any license text.
\ "Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or |
`\ 50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's |
_o__) hard to avoid second-hand smoke." -- Michael Tiemann |