On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 at 14:06:49 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > 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?
Since the issue under discussion is things that might or might not be covered by copyright, I wasn't sure whether "work" as legal jargon implies "copyrightable thing" (and hence isn't applicable to non-copyrightable things); avoiding the term presumably sidesteps that :-) > > > 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”. Yes, I meant the Expat license (or in fact, what I really meant was "insert the terms of your favourite permissive license here", but the Expat license is a good choice). > 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 don't see how anyone who isn't the copyright holder[1] could offer a license for material that might be copyrightable, but yes, it's worth emphasizing that. S [1] by which I really mean: "entity who would be the copyright holder if the work was copyrightable, which it might be, or not". Superpositions of states are hard to talk about precisely :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110125172712.ga31...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk