On Jan 1, 2008 10:36 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > A copyright license doesn't need to make anything explicit that > is already explicit in copyright law.
Okay. So is the preservation of copyright notices already explicit in copyright law? I haven't been able to find anything about this on Google and Wikipedia etc., though it's hard to know what to look for with the question being the fairly subtle one of whether unqualified permission to modify a file *entails* modification of copyright notices. > Some license authors may choose to make some requirements > explicit anyway, as a courtesy That's true, but in such cases I normally find qualifying text such as "your right to ?thing is unaffected". On the other hand it's also true that this is more often the case for making rights explicit than making responsibilities explicit. > 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. Well, what other heuristic should I use? I can't justify the cost of a lawyer for this, so I can only make the best assumptions that I know how to make, and ask friends and people on debian-legal and so on... In other words, if you have evidence that's better than mine, please do tell me! -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
