On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Johnny Solbu <joh...@solbu.net> wrote: > Unless you explicitly transfer the copyright to someone else, You are the > copyrights holder. Don't confuse copyrights with licensing.
That's a very good point. I think I confuse licensing with transferring copyright sometimes. > (As an example, we are legaly required to give credit to King James as the > author when we redistribute the old 1611 KJV Bible.) This kind of blew my mind. What are the benefits--supposed or otherwise--of such a law? > To allow relicensing, use a license that does not have a clause to release > derivative works under the same or equivalent license. This also means that > Microsoft and Apple can take it, replace your license with their EULA, and > prohibit the redistribution of their version. Although that would be something of a dick move, I don't want to legally prohibit it. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
