On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:40:30 -0500 Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong wrong wrong. > > You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is. > You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience. > > "I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now" doesn't > make it so. Try it and see what happens. > > Let me try once more to explain how this works. Here is the license > of a piece of code I wrote: > * Copyright (c) 2007 Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for > any > * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the > * above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all > copies. > > This means if you want to use my code in any way shape or form you > MUST maintain the copyright & license. It says on ALL copies > therefore this includes other code, binary files, source, GPL goo etc. > > The whole point is that one can't go around interpreting law. That's > a judge's job. I am not interpreting any licenses for anybody, I am > stating facts as they exist today in the frame of the law. Don't like > that? I suggest suing someone to see if you can get a judge to agree > with your interpretation; from there you can claim jurisprudence. > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > > Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > >For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot > > >change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, > > >or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). > > > > > >It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, > > >because it is a legal document. > > > > With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. > > > > The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. > > The license is a part of the copyrighted work. > > It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. > > Wrong. Copyright includes ALL rights; the license is what surrenders > some of these rights. Copyright is INCLUSIVE. In other words if if > write my totally 1337 program that has NO license it automatically is > completely covered by copyright. One can NOT copy it, can NOT modify > it & can NOT distribute it. It is the most restrictive license. > > > > > The ISC License requires little more than preserving the > > copyright notice, not the license itself, > > And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright > > notice would likely violate copyright law. > > Not "likely"; it is breaking the law. > > > > > BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, > > with no availability of source - and no preservation > > of license. > > Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that > they preserved the copyrights as required. > > If you are not preserving the copyrights and the license in the file > you are breaking the law. I did run strings on some Windows XP command line tools just out of curiosity and while I was able to find the copyright line I couldn't find any license. I don't want to reanimate this thread, I want it to die as quickly as possible but I was just wondering why they don't need to provide the license conditions. Jona -- "I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you are free." Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord & Confusion
