"Sean B. Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Jan 1, 2008 10:39 AM, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > Firstoff, does the law allow removing or altering appropriate > > copyright notices? I don't think so, but I'll leave this argument > > to real lawyers... > > The argument against this is that some licenses, all those that have a > Y in Column B of my survey, require this explicitly and some don't.
That doesn't seem to be an argument against Francesco's point at all. A copyright license doesn't need to make anything explicit that is already explicit in copyright law. Some license authors may choose to make some requirements explicit anyway, as a courtesy; but there is a huge body of requirement that they omit from such licenses, that nevertheless continues to have force of law. > At the very least, a license that makes this point explicit makes me > feel better that a requirement I care about is going to be noticed > by people using my software. I wonder how many other requirements that you care about in copyright law are entirely unexamined because you've not seen them explicated in any license text. -- \ "Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or | `\ 50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's | _o__) hard to avoid second-hand smoke." -- Michael Tiemann | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
