--- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:48:51AM -0700, justin bengtson wrote: > > i'd like some help and constructive criticism with this, especially > regarding > > gaping holes. it's intended to be a "give credit where credit is due" type > of > > license. this is only a first draft... the name can change! here goes... > > I understand why you might want a shorter or less verbose license than the > GNU GPL, but I have to say that your license feels like it is trying to be > a professional lawyer-grade license, without the understanding of > Copyright law that should accompany authorship of such a license.
i don't have internet at home yet, and a lot of what i am basing my legaleese on is EULA from various games i own. sorry for that... > Second, the whole plagarism thing. It is ILLEGAL, under Copyright law, to > misrepresent the authorship of a work, in whole or in part. If I have > taken your work and put my name on it in place of yours, I do not need a > license clause to tell me that I'm doing something wrong, the law already > says so. And under the law, it's Copyright infringement to misrepresent > the origins of any work covered by Copyright. Legally a work in the > public domain can be misrepresented in the US, but as it happens the rest > of the world has this concept of Moral Rights which would prevent it. my home is the US. i plan to publish in the US. but i take your point. > You can not, in the United States, place anything into the public domain. > You can make the simple statement that you are doing so, but this is > really a Copyright license. The law is written with the assumption that > everyone wishes to profit from their work, no matter how trivial, and > therefore all works which are not barred from Copyright protection, are, > in fact, protected by Copyright. (If contested, you may have to prove > that you indeed are the original creator and therefore owner of the > Copyright, but there are ways to do that..) > > The GNU GPL, while a great legal-political document, is really a badly > written license. A license explains the terms, pure and simple. The > long-winded speech about what is right and good and fair in the world of > Copyright law has little bearing on the license and detracts from the very > simple question: What may I do with this pile of code? What may I not? after reading posts from you and cory, i have come to the conclusion that it should be removed. you are absolutely right. > I would be happy to offer more specific suggestions for your planned > license, but there are some important things to think about in the above. > As I am not an attorney and am not qualified to provide legal advice, you > may outright disregard my comments. I do have some experience in this > area, though. thank you. i do appreciate the feedback. ===== Justin Bengtson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) E-mail, or any form of writing, is not true communication, and can only result in the misinterpretation of meanings. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
