> Wrong wrong wrong.
>
> You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is.
> You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience.
>
> "I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now" doesn't
> make it so. Try it and see what happens.
>
> Let me try once more to explain how this works. Here is the license
> of a piece of code I wrote:
> * Copyright (c) 2007 Marco Peereboom <marco@peereboom.us>
> *
> * 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.
>
> This means if you want to use my code in any way shape or form you
> MUST maintain the copyright & license. It says on ALL copies
> therefore this includes other code, binary files, source, GPL goo etc.
>
> The whole point is that one can't go around interpreting law. That's
> a judge's job. I am not interpreting any licenses for anybody, I am
> stating facts as they exist today in the frame of the law. Don't like
> that? I suggest suing someone to see if you can get a judge to agree
> with your interpretation; from there you can claim jurisprudence.
>
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> > Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > >
> > >For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot
> > >change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs,
> > >or that conversation (
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
> > >
> > >It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
> > >because it is a legal document.
> >
> > With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree..
> >
> > The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.
> > The license is a part of the copyrighted work.
> > It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law.
>
> Wrong. Copyright includes ALL rights; the license is what surrenders
> some of these rights. Copyright is INCLUSIVE. In other words if if
> write my totally 1337 program that has NO license it automatically is
> completely covered by copyright. One can NOT copy it, can NOT modify
> it & can NOT distribute it. It is the most restrictive license.
>
> >
> > The ISC License requires little more than preserving the
> > copyright notice, not the license itself,
> > And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright
> > notice would likely violate copyright law.
>
> Not "likely"; it is breaking the law.
>
> >
> > BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products,
> > with no availability of source - and no preservation
> > of license.
>
> Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
> they preserved the copyrights as required.
>
> If you are not preserving the copyrights and the license in the file
> you are breaking the law.
