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

Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?

"Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com> 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 |
Ben Finney

Reply to: