Karl Dubost wrote:
IMHO, when the implementors do not understand the licenses, they have no
rights to do things with content (because it's highly dependant of local
laws)
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Implementors have the rights they
have under the applicable set of laws,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 7 sept. 06 à 01:29, John Panzer a écrit :
This is a critical point. Without this, implementors cannot safely
ignore licenses they don't understand (falling back to things like
fair use if they can't find any licenses that grant additional
copying rights).
John Panzer asks of Karl Dubost:
(Let's say that Doc Searls somehow discovers a license that
would deny sploggers more than implied rights to his content
while allowing liberal use for others[1], and deploys it.
Are you saying that all of his readers' feed software would
have to drop his
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
...
The concern about limiting implied licenses is important, though. By
definition, an implied license is one that's presumed from the context
of an offering and by the absence of a contrary explicit license. If
as a factual matter, many people have been acting
