I am not a lawyer either, but... Marcus Brinkmann said: > The other comments state the difference in copyright law, if everything is > forbidden that is not explicitely allowd or if everything that is not > explicitely forbidden is allowed.
I don't really see how this applies here... Yes, the standard American legal system follows the principle that if an action is not specifically forbidden by law (either statute or common law), it is legal. In theory, this would mean that in the absense of a law to the contrary, I could modify and distribute any piece of software without penalty. But there is a law to the contrary: US Copyright Law grants several exclusive rights to the Author of a copyrightable work. This specifically forbids others from modifying and distributing a work without the permission of the copyright holder. So the claim that I can do it because what isn't forbidden is allowed fails, since it is forbidden. > We have the Bern convention in europe which specifies the former. I don't > know about the letter, and would assume the worst to be on the safe side. > > In general, I prefer to have a license that does not leave any ambiguity or > interpretation on my side. > > Marcus > > -- > "Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@ > Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key > http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
