On 14.09.2016 23:05, Dave Horsfall wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
This interpretation is based on the hypothesis that the user is located
in a country that has this kind of legal rule.
This is not the case in every country, so your conclusion is not always
valid.
What percentage of countries are signatories to the Berne Convention?
Last I looked, only nice friendly places such as China and North Korea
were holding out (and USA was one of the last to sign, and even then with
conditions).
That is not the only factor. You're quote misses Kurts statement "If no
license statement can be found in the sources or the website, then no
permission is given, and it's technically illegal for
anyone but the author(s) to use the software."
This for example is true for Germany, which signed the Berne Convention.
But the German law for example makes it impossible to say "i have no
right on the source i wrote by myself". You always have the right and it
is impossible to resign it. So its even possible that you define a
LICENSE like "public domain", but it would be wrong, since a german
author is not possible to do this by german laws. Define no license
means all rights are yours, but not if you wrote the code for your
employer. In this case you have all rights of the source, but give a
full usage/distribution/some-more-rights to it.
So in conclusion: licenses are a complex thing.
Greetings,
Torsten
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
