login
Search
> Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
ISC has no say in the matter of "interpreting" the legal document.
Authors put them onto files hoping the license lays down the rights
they wish to retain, and grants they wish to give to the public. Then
courts interpret COPYRIGHT LAW FIRST, then what the author's license
grant really says.
ISC does not enter into the picture, except as they were the first to
craft the legal document in that way. In fact, the ISC-style license
that OpenBSD uses is... a tiny bit different. In fact, the ISC
license has gone through a variety of mutations over the decades. It
is an attempt to be a shorter easier to understand version of the
2-term BSD license (but it is apparent many people still can't
understand that copyright notices have an implied and invisible full
copyright act before them).
> That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that
Copyright law does.
When you are holding a gun to my head, there is no piece of paper
in front of my head saying you can't fire the gun. Do I really need
to start giving grade school examples??
> In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove
Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law,
a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is
pulled in the MOMENT a "Copyright (c) YYMM author" decleration is
made.
> The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style
No, it has not, because you are completely wrong!
> FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT
Nothing is that simple -- or all these licenses would be exactly that
text you print, but they are quite clearly not, and have many many
words there for a reason. AND they carry the full weight of Copyright
law in with them as well.
> If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do
If you have a copyright notice with a license that grants SOME rights,
you retain all the other rights granted in the full copyright acts of your
nation (and other nations, details, details..)
> > If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a
There is only one 'Total Freedom', and it is a "Public Domain"
declaration, which these licenses are not. These are full Copyright
Act licenses, carrying the full of power of the Copyright, and only THEN
the addition author's release surrenders some rights he has.
> If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to
Wow. You are so full of balony. Get an education, please.
