Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:25:21 CET schrieb Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I cannot speak to the British system, so John my very well be right in that context, but in the United States the critical question is whether the advice being given is of a specific or general nature. In Germany the situation is similar. There is a number of legal self-help web forums where questions are being formulated as abstract problems in the manner of textbook questions to circumvent this, apparently successfully (A buys a car from B which belongs to C and has a defect unknown to A and B...). I think it would be difficult to apply this here. Michael -- Michael Below Rechtsanwalt www.judiz.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Am Mo 28 Jan 2008 09:27:54 CET schrieb John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as constituting legal advice in the first place. Okay: Yes there is. At least the German one, and, as we've heard, the US one too. People shouldn't be coming on to this list for legal advice. That's not what it's for. I think it's not a matter of what people *should* do. Actually, people are coming here and asking what they should do with regard to this software, that license, this exception. Up to a point. But I don't think it is a case of whether something is legal advice in the abstract, but whether (a) the person sending the message owes its readers a duty of care, and (b) whether the readers are entitled to rely on the message as legal advice. That seems pretty unlikely to me - or I wouldn't post on this list at all, disclaimer or no disclaimer - and so the need for a full, explicit disclaimer seems minimal. TINLA just makes the point that bit clearer, in a light-hearted and generally accepted manner. Okay, so you are advising me that this specific behaviour is not a legal problem in the UK. But you are not giving legal advice in the legal sense of the word. The UK legal system seems to be thriving, if it's able create such fine distinctions :) Michael Below -- Michael Below Rechtsanwalt www.judiz.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Jan 26, 2008 2:52 PM, Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a disclaimer like TINLA? Perhaps first of all we need to ask if there is a legal system on earth that would regard contributing to this mailing list as constituting legal advice in the first place. One, it is probably not intelligible to people coming to this list for legal advice. A disclaimer that can't be understood by its target audience shouldn't have legal meaning. People shouldn't be coming on to this list for legal advice. That's not what it's for. Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it away post factum. A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign This is not a pipe beneath it. Up to a point. But I don't think it is a case of whether something is legal advice in the abstract, but whether (a) the person sending the message owes its readers a duty of care, and (b) whether the readers are entitled to rely on the message as legal advice. That seems pretty unlikely to me - or I wouldn't post on this list at all, disclaimer or no disclaimer - and so the need for a full, explicit disclaimer seems minimal. TINLA just makes the point that bit clearer, in a light-hearted and generally accepted manner. John Note: This email has been written and sent for the general interest and benefit of readers of this mailing list. It is not intended to be a definitive analysis of the law or other issues relating to its subject matter. Advice should be taken on specific issues before you take or decide not to take any action. Or in other words: TINLA. ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Monday 28 January 2008 01:27:54 am John Halton wrote: Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it away post factum. A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign This is not a pipe beneath it. Up to a point. But I don't think it is a case of whether something is legal advice in the abstract, but whether (a) the person sending the message owes its readers a duty of care, and (b) whether the readers are entitled to rely on the message as legal advice. That seems pretty unlikely to me - or I wouldn't post on this list at all, disclaimer or no disclaimer - and so the need for a full, explicit disclaimer seems minimal. TINLA just makes the point that bit clearer, in a light-hearted and generally accepted manner. Youcan do an archive search for my posting on this topic and you'll find me often asking folks to temper their emails because they are getting dangerously close (if not going over) the line of what is and is not legal advice. I cannot speak to the British system, so John my very well be right in that context, but in the United States the critical question is whether the advice being given is of a specific or general nature. Example: Okay: Using GPL'ed software in a closed source application is bad. No Okay: Using GNU tar in a close source application violates section X.X of the GPL and will result in civil liability. My understanding (as a recent law school graduate and member of the CA bar... but not practicing...) is that there is no duty of care standard. You are either dispensing legal advice or you are not, doesn't matter whether the other party has a reasonable expectation to rely on it or not. The disclaimers do not modify that analysis, they are however a nice convention to remind folks of the nature of the list... but if I were to go around telling people you should do X because of Y then I'm giving legal advice. Where I think reliance and duty of care standard apply is in the analysis of damages. My guess is that I cannot be sued for civil damages of malpractice for stuff I say on this list (or, damages will be limited based on reliance)... but there are other gotchas with distributing legal advice, like practicing without a license for those who are not members of the bar and professional responsibility requirements for those who are. I'm sure folks can come up with a thousand reasons why this is a stupid way to regulate the legal industry... but it is what it is... and yes, it does make posting to this list challenging if you want to stay in the clear. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg c: 831.818.6940e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a disclaimer like TINLA? I think the long list of acronyms may be a sly dig at certain silly postings in times past which complained that certain people weren't making it clear enough that they aren't lawyers, debian project leaders, or other similar qualified people. I think Francesco Poli was repeatedly targetted for that and I think it was around the same time that my people.d.o pages gained the phrase You might think that's obvious, but ...! [...] A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign This is not a pipe beneath it. But the one with the sign beneath it really isn't a pipe! ;-) I hope anyone who hasn't seen The Two Mysteries goes and looks it up. Magritte was a twisted artist and that is a particularly fine work. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On torsdagen den 24 januari 2008, Ben Finney wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says OpenVision *retains* copyright strongly implies that it is simply talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be needed. It's the derivative works [...] whether created by OpenVision or by a third party that muddies the water. This could be rationally interpreted as a claim to retain copyright in *all* derived works of the original, including all derivatives, even those parts created by a third party. If I'm not entirely mistaken, a work is a unit, to which one or more persons may have copyright as a whole. There really is no such thing as copyright to a part of a work. However, if a portion of a work can be broken out as a new work on its own, it is possible that only those authors who had part in creating that portion can claim copyright to it. -- Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks) Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack) -- Dave Evans signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:11:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: [...] The may be non-free aspect was the requirement of requiring the creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms, I would regard it as non-free. I agree. *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create/distribute derivative works. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpn0Juh22vf0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create/distribute derivative works. I forgot to add my usual disclaimers, I'm thus doing so now: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpFdqtdxsUFb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Hi, Francesco Poli schrieb: On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create/distribute derivative works. I forgot to add my usual disclaimers, I'm thus doing so now: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. Just wondering: Is there a legal system on earth that would accept a disclaimer like TINLA? One, it is probably not intelligible to people coming to this list for legal advice. A disclaimer that can't be understood by its target audience shouldn't have legal meaning. Two, this disclaimer tries to force its own judgement onto the legal system. If the statement you are referring to is legal advice (which is a question of legal interpretation), you shouldn't be able to define it away post factum. A pipe is a pipe, even if you put a sign This is not a pipe beneath it. Michael Below Rechtsanwalt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:23:53AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says OpenVision *retains* copyright strongly implies that it is simply talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be needed. It's the derivative works [...] whether created by OpenVision or by a third party that muddies the water. This could be rationally interpreted as a claim to retain copyright in *all* derived works of the original, including all derivatives, even those parts created by a third party. Er, of course that's what it means. Derivative work is a term *defined* in US copyright law as *meaning* those transformations of a work in which the author maintains a copyright interest. This is nothing more than a redundant, boilerplate assertion of the owner's copyright under law. That interpretation would fairly easily lead to the conclusion that the creator of the derivative work *doesn't* have copyright in the work, since OpenVision's terms explicitly take it away. Only if you were operating in a vacuum with no understanding of the terminology, or how copyright operates. It's not possible for OpenVision to deprive someone else of their copyright by including a statement in a license for OpenVision's own work. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Jan 24, 2008 12:23 AM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the licence, but it's not non-free. I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of retain copyright is not all-inclusive. Well, as ever in these cases, clarification from the copyright holder would be the best way to be sure of the position. But the more I think about it, the more I think retain copyright means what it says - i.e., keep something you already have, not obtain something you didn't previously have. This does illustrate yet again one easily-overlooked problem with licence proliferation and ad hoc licensing terms for free software - namely, that a lot of these non-mainstream terms are very poorly drafted. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file: --- The following copyright and permission notice applies to the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system located in kadmin/create, kadmin/dbutil, kadmin/passwd, kadmin/server, lib/kadm5, and portions of lib/rpc: Copyright, OpenVision Technologies, Inc., 1996, All Rights Reserved WARNING: Retrieving the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system source code, as described below, indicates your acceptance of the following terms. If you do not agree to the following terms, do not retrieve the OpenVision Kerberos administration system. You may freely use and distribute the Source Code and Object Code compiled from it, with or without modification, but this Source Code is provided to you AS IS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY WARRANTY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IN NO EVENT WILL OPENVISION HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA OR COSTS OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE SOURCE CODE, OR THE FAILURE OF THE SOURCE CODE TO PERFORM, OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code. OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright notice must be preserved if derivative works are made based on the donated Source Code. OpenVision Technologies, Inc. has donated this Kerberos Administration system to MIT for inclusion in the standard Kerberos 5 distribution. This donation underscores our commitment to continuing Kerberos technology development and our gratitude for the valuable work which has been performed by MIT and the Kerberos community. Moving on to consider the specific points raised: * line 18-21: Export of this software from the United States of America may require a specific license from the United States Government. It is the responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to obtain such a license before exporting. This section may not suit freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. I don't think that clause is a problem. US export laws will (or won't) apply regardless of what the licence says, so this is really just a matter of information. It doesn't affect the DFSG-freeness of the software. * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. This is rather an odd one. It's not clear in the context of the relevant paragraph whether this is just making a statement of fact about the Source Code as you may be using it, or whether it is seeking to claim ownership of any modifications that licensees make. If the latter, then I suspect that in a lot of jurisdictions it will not actually achieve the desired effect - for example, UK copyright law requires an assignment of copyright to be in writing and signed by the assignor. The question is then whether this interferes with software freedom. If you create a derivative work from the software, then (making the *big* assumption that the clause is legally effective) the copyright in that work, including your modifications, will vest in OpenVision. However, you still have the benefit of the licence terms as regards those modifications, so it doesn't interfere with your freedom on a practical level. What it does potentially mean is that OpenVision can *additionally* license your modifications under non-free licence terms, which many developers may consider undesirable. But OpenVision would be taking a risk if they actually did this, given that it is highly doubtful that they can claim legal ownership of the copyright in licensees' modifications on the basis of this licence provision. It probably wouldn't hurt to raise this with OpenVision, if possible. Do they consider this clause to give them ownership of copyright in any modifications made to the software, or is it simply saying that your rights under the licence do not affect the ultimate ownership of the copyright? I don't think the DFSG-freeness is affected in either event, but if OpenVision are trying to claim ownership of modifications then this is unusual, undesirable and probably ineffective. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... I think the license of krb5 (http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/k/krb5/krb5_1.4.3-5ubuntu0.2/) has two unclear sections regarding freedom: * line 18-21: Export of this software from the United States of America may require a specific license from the United States Government. It is the responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to obtain such a license before exporting. This clause doesn't appear to have any additional effect on the recipient; I can't see that this could be interpreted as anything but *informing* the reader of requirements that (may) already exist. This section may not suit freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. Since it's not imposing any restriction (merely drawing attention to ones that may already be imposed), I don't see that it affects the freedom of the work. * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. Yes. This adds a requirement that doesn't exist under copyright law: you, the creator of a derivative work, will surrender copyright in that work to OpenVision. That's a significant cost to pay, and it's written in the license as a term of deriving the work at all. This seems to be over-reaching on the part of the licensor, and may make the work non-free. -- \ There's no excuse to be bored. Sad, yes. Angry, yes. | `\Depressed, yes. Crazy, yes. But there's no excuse for boredom, | _o__) ever. -- Viggo Mortensen | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 11:28 +, John Halton wrote: On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file: --- The following copyright and permission notice applies to the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system located in kadmin/create, kadmin/dbutil, kadmin/passwd, kadmin/server, lib/kadm5, and portions of lib/rpc: Trim. I don't think the DFSG-freeness is affected in either event, but if OpenVision are trying to claim ownership of modifications then this is unusual, undesirable and probably ineffective. Thanks for your feedback! karl John (TINLA) -- Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian / Ubuntu / gNewSense -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. Yes. This adds a requirement that doesn't exist under copyright law: you, the creator of a derivative work, will surrender copyright in that work to OpenVision. That's a significant cost to pay, and it's written in the license as a term of deriving the work at all. This seems to be over-reaching on the part of the licensor, and may make the work non-free. AIUI this says that openvision has copyright to derivative works, which is a fact anyway. There can be multiple copyright holders, and in the case of a derivative work created by a third party, there will be. I don't see what's non-free about that? Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Julien Cristau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. Yes. This adds a requirement that doesn't exist under copyright law: you, the creator of a derivative work, will surrender copyright in that work to OpenVision. That's a significant cost to pay, and it's written in the license as a term of deriving the work at all. AIUI this says that openvision has copyright to derivative works, which is a fact anyway. There can be multiple copyright holders, and in the case of a derivative work created by a third party, there will be. I don't see what's non-free about that? The may be non-free aspect was the requirement of requiring the creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms, I would regard it as non-free. I hadn't thought of the interpretation that this clause is merely asserting that OpenVision retains copyright *in the parts of the work to which they already had copyright*. It's not clear whether this is intended to apply *also* to the creative work introduced in the derivative work. -- \ [The RIAA] have the patience to keep stomping. They're playing | `\ whack-a-mole with an infinite supply of tokens. -- kennon, | _o__) http://kuro5hin.org/ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. AIUI this says that openvision has copyright to derivative works, which is a fact anyway. There can be multiple copyright holders, and in the case of a derivative work created by a third party, there will be. I don't see what's non-free about that? On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says OpenVision *retains* copyright strongly implies that it is simply talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be needed. It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the licence, but it's not non-free. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: * line 81-83: OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. I think this could threat this software freedom. On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says OpenVision *retains* copyright strongly implies that it is simply talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be needed. It's the derivative works [...] whether created by OpenVision or by a third party that muddies the water. This could be rationally interpreted as a claim to retain copyright in *all* derived works of the original, including all derivatives, even those parts created by a third party. That interpretation would fairly easily lead to the conclusion that the creator of the derivative work *doesn't* have copyright in the work, since OpenVision's terms explicitly take it away. It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the licence, but it's not non-free. I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of retain copyright is not all-inclusive. -- \Courteous and efficient self-service. —Café sign, southern | `\France | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
