Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: While we're flaming about copyrights... Message-ID: Date: 6 May 90 21:57:05 GMT References: <=X833-ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <435:May611:29:3590@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 85 > Obviously I'm biased towards the more comprehensive alternative that I > just posted to alt.sources. Obviously, but the goals of the "Really Free Software Foundation" (i.e., me) differ from yours. > ``Permission to use... is granted'' incorrectly implies that you have > the power to restrict that right. Mention this in a side explanation > instead. For this and similar points: if the person reading the copyright is sophisticated enough to worry know this, they probably understand the reason for the wording. If not, (and this is the reson for the wording in question) and they're paranoid enough to worry about it, they're not going to be satisfied with stuff outside the primary document. And part of the purpose of this is to encourage people to use the software, instead of flaming about it, so being less than explicit about the user's rights is likely to be counterproductive. > Someone can modify the software without putting in any notices of his > changes, and without telling the recipients where to get the original. > This is dangerous. Good point. > Someone can sell the software without asking you first. Sure, this just > reflects a different philosophy, but it's wiser to distribute a notice > making the choices that most free software distributors will agree with. If the software is *free*, then someone can sell it without asking me. If not, then I wouldn't refer to myself as a free software distributor. This particular point is the core of my objections to the GPL. > Someone can sell the software without letting the recipients know before > purchase that the original source was free. The GPL shares this problem. Good point. > You don't require that your disclaimer of warranty be reproduced in > redistributed copies. This is dangerous. I thought I had. Are you sure? > You don't cleanly separate the concise, precise, incomprehensible legal > stuff from the ambiguous but helpful explanations. This is dangerous. The opposite course, as you have discovered, is also dangerous. > You don't mention that at least a one-line warranty disclaimer should be > included in each file. Good point. > ``Stricter license'' and your examples of it are not defined. What if a > license is stricter in some respects but looser in others? Then they have to make the original source available, like I said. > ``Such as'' should be ``including but not limited to'' in legal text. Thanks. > It's a bad idea to leave off ``all rights reserved.'' Yes. Thanks. > Derivative. True. I'm not a lawyer. The original is widely accepted despite obvious flaws. At least it's an improvement. > I wonder about some of the phrases included in (and omitted from) your > warranty disclaimer. (The implied warranty of fitness? Gee, Peter, how > much can your programs benchpress?) 90 lbs. > Many of the usual phrases are purely > customary, but some of them have specific legal meaning. Ask a lawyer. One of these days. I'm not made of money. > The recipient doesn't get a question-and-answer file like my WHY file. I'm allergic to licenses larger than the associated source. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today? @FIN Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.