> the absence of agreements, rules and disclaimers is enough. The problem is, almost all people on earth are part of an agreement (well indirectly, but yet nevertheless valid) which states that every creation comes with certain rights what do with it and those rights are by default reserved to the creator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention I know, no one living today ever agreed personally to it, but also no one disagreed in a valid way. Automatic disabling of every agreement we didn't made personally wouldn't be a good thing (e.g. Human Rights). But in essence: When the license is not clearly stated, then you cannot be sure you have a permission to use the work. That doesn't make it automatically illegal for you to use it. If you are indeed not allowed to use the work, then the author (or copyright holder, if the right can be sold, which is not possible e.g. in Germany) could sue you. If the author has the interest and resources to do it. It's merely a discomfort for the user that the license is not stated everywhere, as the user has to inform themselves. ----- Original Message ----- From: Oskar Wieland [mailto:oskar.wiel...@gmx.de] To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:04:29 +0700 Subject: Re: Unclear licensing don't let yourself (or others) be confused by freedom. same with the term "free trade agreement". it is contradictory in itself. if you think about it for a moment, "free trade" don't need an "agreement". the absence of agreements, rules and disclaimers is enough. regards 05k4r -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:email@example.com?subject=Unsubscribe