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

Re: copyright law wackyness

Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:

> In Slovakia apparently license grants have to be "in writing", meaning
> most software licenses have no effect

Note that (as Paul implies) it is *copyright law* which restricts. A
license is effectively a special relaxation of the restrictions in
copyright law.

That's why we go to such pedantic efforts to make sure the license for a
work exists and is effective, because it's only the license grant that
relieves the default restrictions on recipients of Debian.

So “the license has no effect” is an undesirable state, since in the
absence of an effective copyright license the recipient of a work has
the full force of copyright restriction on their actions.

> and anyone participating in Free Software is potentially doing so
> illegally. In addition, license grants must be to specific persons.
> http://mujlt.law.muni.cz/storage/1205528865_sb_07-ezattler.pdf

I found that document a little difficult to follow. What does the author
assert is the case when a license grant is not specific to a person and
is not transferred “in writing”?

 \         “Of all classes the rich are the most noticed and the least |
  `\      studied.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, _The Age of Uncertainty_, |
_o__)                                                             1977 |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgp1f5GNpiTpi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: