On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Pádraic Brady <[email protected]>wrote: > the fact that a license does exist and is attached to a feed
What makes it a license? You may feel that you have attached a license, but what compels me to also consider it a license? The fact that you THINK it is a license is not compelling. I can only be compelled to consider it a license if it is expressed in some form that is declared to be appropriate by a legislature (or a judiciary, dictator, king, queen, or other law making body or entity.) In any case, you can't exercise powers not granted to you by the law. Copyright law defines the maximum amount of control that you can have over content unless you and some other party mutually agree to something else in a contract and a contract requires acceptance by BOTH parties, not simply a declaration by one of them. Only law-makers can bind me without my consent. You cannot. Stuff you put into your feed is a unilateral declaration. It ain't a contract and its only a license if I decide to treat it like one. (Note: I decide. Not you.) bob wyman [Note: Permission to read this message is controlled by the following license: You can only read this while standing on one foot and then only on non-Windows machines. Failure to act in accordance with these terms will require you to pay me $100.00. PayPal not accepted.] On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Pádraic Brady <[email protected]>wrote: > > Legislatures define the form and scope of legally binding licenses. You > can write whatever you want, but it is only legally binding if some > legislature said it would be. > > Sorry, but that is almost sheer nonsense. I say almost, because I think you > are just about touching on the legal issue of a contract (and we know how > horrible they can be at times). In my nation, at least, the legal binding of > any license or contract is determined by the judiciary. The case law > surrounding the concept is quite solid. Licenses are legally binding - there > is no doubt here. The form can matter, and licenses have evolved a great > deal to compensate for this. However many licenses already cover certain > assumptions which by and large have proved very solid and upholdable in many > regimes, including my own. > > The debate has shifted focus though from the original point. The argument > is not the validity of a license, but the fact that a license does exist and > is attached to a feed. It exists. To ignore it or remove it is, at best, > morally unsound and, at worst, criminal. > > Paddy > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Jay Rossiter <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 12/28/2009 1:19 PM, Bob Wyman wrote: >> > When you put "license" text content, you can be as explicit as you >> > want to be. However, that doesn't mean that anything you claim, write, >> > etc. has any legal weight. What has weight is what the legislature >> > says has weight and there is no legislature that has ever defined any >> > format or protocol for specifying license rights in digital content. >> > Because this is an issue of the law, not technology, no "standard" >> > defined by any non-legislative body can serve to define such formats. >> > Only legislatures, or other law makers (Kings, dictators, rulers, >> > etc.), define the law. Standards are not laws and have no legal weight >> > unless explicitly incorporated into the law. >> >> I'm sorry - that's just a silly statement. Copyright and licenses >> are two different things. If what you say were true, then no EULA or >> software license (e.g. GPL) would be legal. >> >> Those licenses define how and where and under what circumstances the >> things that it covers can be used. They can require that attribution >> always be maintained, and even that the license itself is always >> included (GPL and most other software licenses), they can require almost >> anything within reason, really. >> >> Licenses are binding legal documents, they are not legislatively >> provided copyright protections. >> > >
