I will have to quote the license once more.

 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any

 * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the

 * above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What part here tells you that you can replace the license with anything

else?  Oh wait, it tells you that you can't.  What in the world are you

arguing?  Your point is completely retarded on a 5th grade reading

comprehension level.
You are deriving drivel from an incorrect premise.  I can argue all

kinds of neat things that way.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:49:52PM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

quoted text
> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:

> >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.

And the license!
>

quoted text
>

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

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

> >

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

> to do.

Which per the copyright law is NOTHING and the license tells you what

parts of copyright are surrendered.  This license also mentions that

whole got to keep the license thing.
> >The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code

quoted text
> >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.

It says: "and this permission notice"; which is? oh yeah the license.
>

quoted text
>    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.

But you can not remove the license and copyright.  It says so in the

license.
>

quoted text
>    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.

That doesn't mean you surrender your copyright.  In fact the very first

thing in the license is (c)some_year some_person.  Which means that one

is explicitly mentioning copyrights.  This bounds all uses to

copyright law.
>

quoted text
> >If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a

> >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"

There is no such thing outside of public domain.  Repeating it doesn't

make it true.
>

quoted text
>    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.

Not vast amounts which means nothing.  ALL copyright protections.

Repeat after me ALL copyright protections.
>

quoted text
>    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.

This makes no sense at all.  What are you trying to say?
>

quoted text
>    And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control

> your affairs..

Despite the worthlessness of this argument a power of attorney can be

unilaterally revoked at any time; and in many cases even retroactively.