On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Note that (as Paul implies) it is *copyright law* which restricts. A > license is effectively a special relaxation of the restrictions in > copyright law. > > That's why we go to such pedantic efforts to make sure the license for a > work exists and is effective, because it's only the license grant that > relieves the default restrictions on recipients of Debian. > > So “the license has no effect” is an undesirable state, since in the > absence of an effective copyright license the recipient of a work has > the full force of copyright restriction on their actions.
Indeed. > I found that document a little difficult to follow. What does the author > assert is the case when a license grant is not specific to a person and > is not transferred “in writing”? For the in writing bit, I think the following sentence is fairly easy to understand. I took it to mean that the GPL doesn't apply unless it is in writing: According to to mentioned provisions of the SCA all of such licenses are granted in contrary to the law, therefore they are all non-existent, including the GPL. The other part is less clear to me and it refers to contracts rather than licenses, but the document author seems to think it applies to the GPL. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6Ej5wdp8L+xbhaNCX1H1cHUmJgRU78CraT=ETLiNzn=o...@mail.gmail.com
