David Croft scripsit:
> It worries me a bit that some of the licenses treat "use" as just one of
> many potential permissions that can be granted. Take the MIT license
> for example:
Actually, "use" is not one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder.
When you lawfully get a copy of any copyrighted work, you may "use" it how
you please, provided you do not publicly perform or display it.
For example, if you receive a piece of (physical) mail from me,
you may use it to insulate your root cellar.
Its appearance in the MIT license is just redundant, IMHO; IANAL.
> Let's face it: there aren't many clients out there who
> both understand and are willing to manage the obligations and
> restrictions of incorporated Open Source code.
Of the MIT license? There's nothing to manage; nobody is obliged
to anybody for anything.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
--Douglas Hofstadter
