> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:20:42PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
>>> "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. The copyright holder hereby grants permission to
>>> everyone, forever, to do anything with this work which would otherwise be
>>> restricted by his exclusive legal right
> >Hi!
> >
> >Would a software with the following statement and without any further
> >copyright or licensing notice be free?
>
> No.
> >"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
> >
> >Any issues with that?
> Copyright law requires *explicit* permission in order to do a whole bunch of
> thing
> > Would a software with the following statement and without any further
> > copyright or licensing notice be free?
> >
> > "Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
> >
> > Any issues with that?
>
> This is definitely not a license at all.
Indeed it is not a license as there shouldn't exist
Hi!
Would a software with the following statement and without any further
copyright or licensing notice be free?
"Copyright 2005 by XYZ. No rights reserved."
Any issues with that?
Harald
--
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a0300802/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
> If you want a public-domain-equivalent license, write something like this:
>
> (Some credit goes to Anthony DeRobertis. I've been trying to refine
> this; it would be nice to have a 'standard' one. Ideally we'd get a
> 'sounds good' from at least one common-law and at least one civil-law
> l
> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
> > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
>
> You must include it; that does not mean it must actually be the license
> used on th
If we need to discuss MIT-License in length, there probably should be
a new thread about this. However I'm still looking forward to recieve
answers to my initial question.
> > It says you have to include the permission notice in any "substantial
> > portions of the Software" no matter if source or
Hi!
> > Ideally I would put my software in the public domain, but I've been told,
> > that this isn't possible in all jurisdictions (I don't even know about
> > my own), so I thought to circumwent this by licensing it to give the
> > same rights *as* public domain.
> Has been proposed, but since P
> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> > it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
> > software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
>
> You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing
> source,
[ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Hi!
Thanks, for your response:
> > Is there some other "as free as public domain" license? I don't like
> > to reinvent the wheel, but I haven't found one yet.\
>
> I ususally recommend and use the MIT-Licence for that, it essentially
> says the s
Please cc me, I'm not subscribed.
Hi!
I wonder if the following is a valid license, if it is found in a
tarball in some file LICENSE? Is it necessary to refer to this file
from every other file or is it's existance enough?
| You may deal with the stuff in this package in any way you want, the
|
11 matches
Mail list logo
