[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Even before that, the King James V bible was controlled by letters > > patent rather than copyright: anyone know more about that? When > > I last looked into it, I didn't find much information. > > The KJV is under perpetual copyright to the crown: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Copyright_status
In general, wikipedia is a poor citation, but in this case it agrees with me: "The rights fall outside the scope of copyright as defined in statute law. Instead they fall under the purview of the Royal Prerogative and as such they are perpetual in subsistence. Publishers are licensed to reproduce the Authorized Version under letters patent." [...] > > That dangerous approach means that I must now view FSF the same way > > that RMS views CC. I can't recommend FSF in general at present, > > because to do so is to support non-free-software works implicitly. > > Pretty depressing state of affairs, IMO. > > I don't believe that this is the case, as Stallman's views on culture do not > effect the efficacy of the GPL, and the SFDL has been drafted to make it less > un-free than the FDL. I feel it is the case: I can recommend the GPL, but I cannot recommend FSF because consequences of Stallman's views on culture have resulted in poor licences of their manuals and databases. Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble. I've ~37 litres of packing chips for free locally - email me. _______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
