Re: Why licenses *are* free (was: Re: Why I don't share Manojs fears.
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
Marcus> [...]
>> > This would essentially be a free+(name change, remove non-technical part)
>> > copyright, and it is exactly that what is already granted by law. It is not
>> > necessary to include all permissions already granted by law in the license
>> > text. For example, fair use is also not mentioned in the copyright
>> > documents, but is granted anyway.
>>
>> True. But this hinges on the truth of your above statement. (Which I
>> don't dispute, I just ask whether it's true everywhere).
Marcus> A good question. International copyright law is hard, and
Marcus> I'll not claim any knowledge on it. However, this was the
Marcus> essence of a mail by RMS (I posted it several times the last
Marcus> months, and I quoted the relevant part in my reply to Manoj),
Marcus> at least for the US.
No. RMS essentially said if licence A requires condiftion foo;
license B can require condition foo as well, and the owner of license
A can't restrict the owner of license B from doing so
Similar conditions apply to standards. No difference (like,
standard M requires bar, standard N can also require bar, and
you can't stop it).
In either case, you can't copy the document verbatim, and make
changes. At least in the united states of america (I understand
things may be different in germany).
There is no distinction between licenses and standards,
legally. And RMS did not say there is. He just said, if a license )or
a standard) requires condition A, another license (or another
standrd) may require the same condition A, and legally the forst
license (standard) owner can not force the other license (standard)
owner from doing that. Verbatim copying is still illegal.
The parantheses are mine.
Marcus> I think people who argue that licenses have to be explicitely
Marcus> free are playing devils advocate. (Not that this is
Marcus> necessarily a bad thing, but at some time one has to get
Marcus> reasonable).
I am not playing devils advocate. I think you have no right to
characterize my position in that fashion.
Marcus> Would somebody of these people care to explain why they want
Marcus> copyrights to be free? They are no technical documents, and
Marcus> they are bound to the work they protect.
Why do you want standards to be free? Since I can't just copy
the GPL, every argument you apply to standards applies to licenses.
manoj
--
"It's a great time to be alive and be a computer weenie." Karl
Lehenbauer
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: