Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > This is nonsense. Courts are not computers. When interpreting legal > documents such as licences, they read the intent of of the author.
We would hope so, yes. They also take into account the intent of the *current* copyright holder. Courts are also not infallible guardians of the public interest; a hostile future copyright holder can wield the lack of a clear grant of license to cause a lot more trouble for recipients than would be the case if the license grant were clear. We have ample instances of that having been done in the past, enough to be cautious in treating ambiguous and contradictory copyright statements. > In this case the author's intent is clear: the author wants to > disclaim the monopolies granted by copyright law. The statement is to > be read as a permissive licence. So no-one is in any danger of being > sued by the (purported) copyrightholder. On this I can't see why you modify “copyright holder”. You think this is an effective divestment of copyright in the work? In all Berne Convention jurisdictions where Debian recipients will operate? I don't. It seems clear to me that “This work is in the public domain” is *not* an effective way to cause a work to have no copyright holder. That work is still restricted under copyright law, despite the intent of that statement. > Obviously it would be better if the authors fixed this technical > defect I'm glad that's a point of agreement. -- \ “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any | `\ view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and | _o__) opposite view.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85sijruz5j....@benfinney.id.au
