Re: copyright law wackyness
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> 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.
> 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”?
For the in writing bit, I think the following sentence is fairly easy
to understand. I took it to mean that the GPL doesn't apply unless it
is in writing:
According to to mentioned provisions of the SCA all of such licenses
are granted in contrary to the law, therefore they are all
non-existent, including the GPL.
The other part is less clear to me and it refers to contracts rather
than licenses, but the document author seems to think it applies to