posted mailed
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient all rights
otherwise reserved to the copyright holder.
Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
Ben Finney wrote:
Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient all rights
otherwise reserved to the copyright holder.
Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
To the extent permitted by law, the copyright
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
author(s) place no restrictions on this script's
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about modification and distribution?
To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about modification and distribution?
To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
Since, as investigation into copyright laws outside the US has found,
even
On 9/26/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put
a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works
in pretty much all jurisdictions.
Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license?
I
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
author(s) place no restrictions on this script's
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
header:
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain
is not common to all countries and more where it exists it can be
11 matches
Mail list logo
