Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2006 16:06 schrieb Ari Johnson: > On 12/3/06, Ari Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/3/06, Dennis Schridde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 3. Dezember 2006 13:29 schrieb Linas Žvirblis: > > > > Dennis Schridde wrote: > > > > >> That's how I see our status quo: it's all just GPL. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like an idea, but how do we tell that the distributors > > > > > without adding a "disclaimer" or whatever else you call the text > > > > > stating our interpretation? > > > > > > > > Just remove anything that might make people question the status of > > > > the license. This includes disclaimers, any mentioning of other > > > > licenses and unclear copyright notices (like "all rights reserved" > > > > stuff) in any files, etc. > > > > > > Asking some lawyers some time ago resulted in the opinion that the "all > > > rights reserved" parts belongs to the copyright which is protected by > > > the GPL. So we can't remove those I think. (File: novideo.rpl) > > > I think Ari explained that "all rights reserved" is just an addition to > > > the copyright notice, stating that you don't hand over the copyright to > > > whoever recieves the file. > > > > For a brief discussion on what "all rights reserved" means, see [1]. > > > > The way I explained it was this: > > > > Under the copyright, all rights are reserved to the copyright holder > > unless expressly stated otherwise. Apparently the "all rights > > reserved" notation is superfluous as of 2000, according to Wikipedia. > > > > The GPL does not aim to be a waiver of copyright protection, but > > rather a license that grants certain privileges to the licensee that > > he would not have without the license (because of copyright > > protection). See [2]. > > > > The essential point is that "all rights reserved" and "do what you > > want under the terms of the GPL" are not mutually exclusive > > statements. > > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Terms_and_conditions > > P.S. I am, of course, not a lawyer. I don't know whether the above is > a correct statement of the law anywhere in the world, but it is what I > am able to gather from the Wikipedia links I gave above. So don't > rely on anything I said. :) Of course not. :)
When saying the note is superfluous, do you mean that we should and am allowed to remove it? Would that bring any benefit? (I don't think so.) GPL says something like "all copyright notices need to stay". It doesn't say anything about what to do when those notices or parts of them get superfluous... So I would just leave it as is. --Dennis
pgpHb2NJtMP24.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
