Pamela Chestek to Anton Shepelev: > > The Fair license is one of the shortest out there. It reads: > > > > > <Copyright Information> > > > > > > Usage of the works is permitted provided that this instrument > > > is retained with the works, so that any entity that uses the > > > works is notified of this instrument. > > > > > DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY. > > > > Surprised though I was, but according to TLDR:Legal, this > > license does not require that the original copyright be > > retained: > > > > https://tldrlegal.com/license/fair-license#summary > > > > Is not "copyright information" part of "this instrument"? If > > not, then what short licenses allow use and modification but > > retain the copyright of the author(s)? > > I don't read TL;DR as suggesting that you don't have to include > the copyright notice. As you say, the copyright information is > part of "this instrument," and the summary says that the license > must be included. I wouldn't infer that the absence of the > copyright notice tag under "must" in TL;DR as suggesting > otherwise, just poor tagging.
Not quite. If you compare it with their summaries of the licenses that do have the "retain copyright" tag under "must" you shall see that it is explicitly stated in the summary, too, so it is not poor tagging but misleading interpretation (if our positions on "this instrument" be correct). I have written to them about it by e-mail, but so far no reply. Thanks for the confirmaion of my misgivings, Pamela. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived] _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
