On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:22:18AM +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > > > > > In Germany, "public domain" does not exist. One *can not* give up > > > the copyright. But one can allow unrestricted use. > > > > So what would you think reading that license? > > You must ask the author to public it under a license that fits better.
To me the text is totally clear. I do this from the perspective of Dutch law, but afaik most countries continental European law is not that different, since they all are signatories of the Bern convention. Before that, let's first define PD, PD is where the The first part grants a license with rights comparable to works with expired copyright (the PD, also in Germany afaik, one just can't "put" it there). The second part can mean two things: - (the more likely one) He grants a non-exclusive license. IOW he can still do with the source as he pleases. So, the author is not limited by the license (though that wouldn't be that bad in practice) - He doesn't waive "Persoonlijksrecht" (personal rights), which are fairly limited rights like "being able to be named the author of the work". These rights are pretty much inalienable anyway, but naming them can sometimes make litigation easier. In the context of continental law, this is pretty much more liberal than a BSD license. The BSD license explicit limits misrepresenting the source, this license is only bound by the law sets. (and its loopholes) _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
