On 15-Oct-2007, Michael Kesper wrote: > Am Montag, den 15.10.2007, 11:25 +1000 schrieb Ben Finney: > > The license is not a contract. The recipient of the work has > > certain freedoms, but has *no* power over the copyright holder. > > This is interesting. Are you sure of that, I mean, do lawyers agree > to this?
I'm convinced of it. Whether any particular lawyer agrees, I can't answer for them. > > In summary: The copyright holder always has the rights granted > > under copyright law. They can grant those rights to others under > > specific terms, but the copyright holder is not themselves bound > > by those terms. > > I really love the way law contradicts common thinking. ;) The vast majority of effects of copyright do indeed contradict common thinking. (I recommend _Digital Copyright_, a book by Jessica Litman, that explores how copyright clashes with people's expectations in the information age.) This specific point doesn't seem to contradict common thinking, though. Why should "Here, *I made this*, you can have a copy and do stuff with it under FOO conditions" bind the person granting that permission to the same conditions? I can't think what common thinking would make that leap of logic. -- \ "I wish I had a dollar for every time I spent a dollar, because | `\ then, yahoo!, I'd have all my money back." -- Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
