Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: >> will be major differences between the anglo-american and the european >> way. (and other ways too, but about these i know even less) > > I think that they are not as big as you'd guess because there are > international treaties that are all about making these laws work in > the same ways across borders. Copyright, patents, and trademarks act > quite similarly in all countries that participate in these treaties > (which is most).
not quite true. (i'd say it is an anglo-centristic viewpoint ;-)) after all, in anglo-american space we have to deal with "copyright" whereas in continental europe we still have the "urheberrecht" which is something really different. >> >> things are certainly better in CreativeCommons (among other things >> because they are less u.s.-centric than the FSF). > > Hmm, that's debatable. They don't have a license without an > attribution clause, it's not even an option. And the CC attribution > clause is much worse than the BSD attribution clause ever was. yes i agree here. i was just trying to say that the creative commons is much more "court-proof" in different countries since it has been adapted to really fit within the legislature of these. the GPL never had anything but the u.s.-american copyright law in mind, which makes it not necesserarily fit for other countries. i do not say that the GPL is bad or futile in europe, it is the license i use... mfg.asdr IOhannes _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
