Constantine A. Murenin wrote:

quoted text
> On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr.  wrote:

>

>>     The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright

>> notice, not the license itself,

>>

>

> That is entirely false.

>

>

    Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -

except remove the copyright.

> If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you

quoted text
> cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file.

>

    You can do whatever either copyright law or the license allows you

to do.

quoted text
> The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code

> nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence).

>

    That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that

requires preserving the license.

    In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove

the copyright,

    The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style

licenses has been over pretty much this

    point.

    FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT

convert GPL'd code to proprietary code.
    BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be "Totally Free" - specifically because

you can convert the code to proprietary code.
    If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do

not need any license at all.

    Just a simple copyright notice will do.

    Pretty much by definition when you have a software license it is

because you are trying to remove yourself from some constraint of

    copyright law - whether you are trying to further bind the user, or

you are trying to release them.
> If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a

quoted text
> copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes

> fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a

> legal document after the document is already signed and approved.

>

    Unless the license allows you to do that.

    That is a  cost to granting others "Total Freedom"

    If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to

atleast some extend you have modifed your rights

    with respect to copyright.

    Both the GPL and ISC cede vast amounts of copyright protections.

    You have to be extremely careful arguing copyright law with any

licensed work, because ontly those parts of copyright law that

    the licensed has not ceded, or can not be waived remain.
    The legal document argument is week. The closest legal document

analogy I can think of would be granting someone else

    the right to act as your agent - as in a power of attorney.
    And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control

your affairs..