On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Johnny Solbu <joh...@solbu.net> wrote:
> Unless you explicitly transfer the copyright to someone else, You are the 
> copyrights holder. Don't confuse copyrights with licensing.

That's a very good point. I think I confuse licensing with
transferring copyright sometimes.

> (As an example, we are legaly required to give credit to King James as the 
> author when we redistribute the old 1611 KJV Bible.)

This kind of blew my mind. What are the benefits--supposed or
otherwise--of such a law?

> To allow relicensing, use a license that does not have a clause to release 
> derivative works under the same or equivalent license. This also means that 
> Microsoft and Apple can take it, replace your license with their EULA, and 
> prohibit the redistribution of their version.

Although that would be something of a dick move, I don't want to
legally prohibit it.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Reply via email to