Larry, > Perhaps you're still confusing terms. Those sections of the QPL don't > require that "copyrights of modifications be passed to the copyright > holder." They are simply grant-back licenses, albeit a little awkwardly > phrased. --> I still maintain that BXAPL section 12.5 is a nearly exact copy (semantically, that is, not literally) of QPL sections 3b and 6c toghether. If my understanding of English fails me at this point, what is the difference, please?
> > --> Anything that is the author's prerogative under copyright law > > can be licensed to third parties under certain restrictions. > > I don't see where contract law comes in. > > Because many licenses deal with much more than "the author's prerogative > under copyright law." There are many provisions in these licenses that > have no analogue in copyright law at all, including warranty, etc., > etc., etc. --> John Cowan's mail cleared some points you're trying to make here. From his mail I conclude that you are right in pointing out that various provisions in the BXAPL will be unenforcible without invoking contract law - in addition to copyright law. I'll reconsider what this means for the BXAPL. > Damn, that was my most fervent wish. I haven't been getting enough > flames on license-discuss. > > > Why don't you come and see for yourself? Anyway, the > > English seem to like those wigs, so what? Furthermore, > > the French legal system and practices are presumably *quite* > > different from ours - and both will differ from yours and then > > again from the English. Still, intellectual property > > laws are sait > > to be quite comparable due to the international treaties on the > > subject. > > So they say. I just practice here in California and the U.S. --> Does 'practicing' imply that you are still in your apprenticeship ;-) (Sorry, couln't resist the bait) Kind Regards, Abe Kornelis. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3