Joe Smith wrote: > > "Nathanael Nerode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Javier wrote: >>> The last proposed licensed I sent is *not* a "new" license. It >>> is simply this license: >>> http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html >> ... >> >>> The Debian Documentation License >>> >>> Copyright 1997-2006 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. All rights >> reserved. >> ... >> >> You can't do this. You just took a copyrighted work (the FreeBSD >> Documentation License), put a different organization's copyright >> notice on >> it, stripped off the original copyright notice, and renamed it. >> >> That's copyright infringement. It's also plagarism, because you >> don't credit >> the origin of the work. >> >> License texts may be literary works, subject to copyright, too. >> Remember >> that. >> >> Dammit, I keep having to bring this topic up. People seem to have a >> blind >> spot about license licensing. > > True, but even laywers have the nasty habit of reusing other licence > text without permision, and > usually do not attribute at all. It looks to be a tolerated practice, > although that does not make > it any less illegal. > > Out of curiosity, are you aware of any legal cases involving > infringing the copyright of a legalese document? > > Out of curiosity, since IANAL, could this be used to prevent a lawsuit? If the side that created the contract was violating them, could they claim copyright status and prevent the injured party from citing the contract when filing a lawsuit?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
