> I think you are deeply confused as to the nature of copyright. That's nice.
> You didn't say that. And you could be more specific by saying what > isn't limited. It was an example. > > I really don't think so. > Well, you lost that court battle. What court battle? How so? Because you said so? Why did you snip out the part where I say Berne and Title 17 specifies the rights granted by authorship? > > You'd be much better off claiming your ancestor > > was insane for giving away his intellectual property, and could not have > > possibly understood what the license meant due to the fact that he spent > > so many hard hours creating the works, and all those hard hours, for > > what? For nothing! > It's worked enough times. By that conclusion, I would surmise that this attack would be effective against other OSS licenses as well. Notice that the reasoning behind the assumption that there was a failure to understand the license was due to the fact that all that work was done for nothing. I imagine this is not what you meant to imply. ;) > Court battles have been fought and lost over such clauses in the > past. Your clause merely says that you aren't providing a warranty, > this does not affect, eg, statutory rights under UK law. You're still > providing the implicit warranty of merchantability, matching the > description, and fitness for a given purpose, and you are liable in > the limited fashion they imply. Criminally so if a mistake on your > part leads to serious injury or loss of life. You'd get a reduced > sentence since you only bear partial, limited responsibility, but you > *would* be convicted. I'm still providing implicit warranties? How so? How is an implicit warranty not a warranty? The disclaimer reads, "THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY", not *a* warranty. Nonetheless, that isn't to say that I don't understand that SOME warranties in SOME jurisdictions MAY need to be EXPLICITY disclaimed in a specific way. It also isn't to say that I don't understand that SOME implicit warranties CANNOT be disclaimed. (btw, I'm not saying you are wrong here, in the UK, specifically explicit disclamation of the implicit warranty of merchantibility may very well be necessary.) Anyways, ISTM that the effectiveness of any disclaimer is probably dependent on the jurisdiction and on the kind of works that are released. This is an area that I plan to do further study in. Again, if you know any resources, references thereto would be appreciated. > Go buy a legal dictionary. Since you're obsessive-compulsive about US > law, which is a common-law country, it's pretty much a waste of time > to sit staring at the statute. Common-law countries don't have any > basic principles written into the statute at all. Thus supporting my point that it's *arguably vague*? And I was already considering purchasing a legal dictionary. Would be nice if one were publically accessible online. Sure, sit staring at Berne isn't useful; however, I imagine reading it would be. > > So what on earth do > > they mean, specifically? Does that mean, I can print the material to > > multiple pieces of rectangular paper and play poker with my buddies > > without restriction? It's arguably vague. > Sure. Who cares? It means all the stuff we care about, plus the vague > lunatic stuff that you're so eager to permit. It wasn't so much a question, more an extreme example of how it could be skewed. > The list of permissions is legally explicit. I can't be bothered to > dissect your poor cariacture; it's wrong. Thanks for your opinion! > Law is not vague fluff I never said it was, and any implications toward the conclusion that that is an idea that I hold true probably came from examples of how the meaning of words can easily be skewed. It was my hopes that such examples might provide some insight as to why I don't find most of the arguments about potential litigation due to semantics useful, as anything could be skewed into possibly meaning something else(specifically thinking of Anthony's argument about potential litigation with regards to the hypothetical argument that it meant only one right.). > you suck at it. Thanks for your opinion! -- Regards, James William Pye -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]