Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
notice, not the license itself,
That is entirely false.
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
except remove the copyright.
If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you
cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file.
You can do whatever either copyright law or the license allows you
to do.
The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code
nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence).
That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that
requires preserving the license.
In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove
the copyright,
The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style
licenses has been over pretty much this
point.
FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT
convert GPL'd code to proprietary code.
BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be "Totally Free" - specifically because
you can convert the code to proprietary code.
If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do
not need any license at all.
Just a simple copyright notice will do.
Pretty much by definition when you have a software license it is
because you are trying to remove yourself from some constraint of
copyright law - whether you are trying to further bind the user, or
you are trying to release them.
If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a
copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes
fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a
legal document after the document is already signed and approved.
Unless the license allows you to do that.
That is a cost to granting others "Total Freedom"
If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to
atleast some extend you have modifed your rights
with respect to copyright.
Both the GPL and ISC cede vast amounts of copyright protections.
You have to be extremely careful arguing copyright law with any
licensed work, because ontly those parts of copyright law that
the licensed has not ceded, or can not be waived remain.
The legal document argument is week. The closest legal document
analogy I can think of would be granting someone else
the right to act as your agent - as in a power of attorney.
And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control
your affairs..
