Francesco Poli <f...@firenze.linux.it> writes: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:07:11 +0000 Simon McVittie wrote: > > I'm not a lawyer or anything, but would this work? > > > > To the extent that it is covered by copyright under any applicable laws, > > this data is copyright © 1984 Winston Smith.
I don't see a need to specify “data”. What's wrong with “work”, the term normally seen in English-language copyright discussions for any information covered by copyright? That difference in terminology isn't a legal issue, though. > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person > > [... and the rest of the usual MIT license text] Where “the usual MIT license text” presumably means the more precise “terms of the Expat license”. > I'm not a lawyer either, but I think this could be a good strategy. So long as the terms are as I specified above, I think that's a good strategy also, but it is only effective if done by the copyright holders (not unilaterally by a third party). -- \ “I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the little | `\ children jump up and down and run around yelling and screaming. | _o__) They don't know I'm only using blanks.” —Emo Philips | Ben Finney
pgpWVDHXvF3CJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
