Re: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?
"Sean B. Palmer" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Jan 1, 2008 10:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > A copyright license doesn't need to make anything explicit that
> > is already explicit in copyright law.
> Okay. So is the preservation of copyright notices already explicit
> in copyright law?
I don't know. My current understanding is "yes" to a first
approximation. It would take actual lawyers to provide a more
trustworthy answer on this one; and it's very likely the answer
involves "it depends".
> > 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.
> Well, what other heuristic should I use? I can't justify the cost of
> a lawyer for this, so I can only make the best assumptions that I
> know how to make, and ask friends and people on debian-legal and so
It is to your credit that you do so, seriously.
\ "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I |
`\ am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I |
_o__) meant." -- Robert J. McCloskey |