| Matthew Palmer 2005-03-06, 2:48 am |
| [no cc thanks]
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 12:16:03AM -0600, Nick Welch wrote:
>
> Interesting. Based on discussions I have seen/been in on OSI's mailing
> list, the license is basically the same (or intended to be) as the MIT/X
[...]
> As far as disallowing modification/redistribution/etc., that is not what
> the license intends to do -- it's basically supposed to just be a
> minimalist "do what you want with this, but give me credit" license.
> If the wording implies restriction of modifications and whatnot, then it
> would seem that there have been some big misunderstandings all around.
This is why random Joe off the street should not be writing licences.
<tutorial topic="copyright" level="newbie">
By default, every creative work is provided the protection of copyright law.
This includes the restriction of duplication, modification, "public
display", and so forth -- the exact rights vary between jurisdictions, but
certainly the act of modification, mass duplication and redistribution tends
to be restricted.
Absent an explicit notification to the contrary, the rights above are
restricted to the copyright holder. Note that carefully: EXPLICIT
NOTIFICATION. The licence provided to the wide world needs to say it in
clear english that you are allowed to do those things normally restricted by
copyright law. Otherwise, you're not allowed to do it, and hence the
"licence" is not DFSG-free.
</tutorial>
- Matt
|