> Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish - > except remove the copyright.
ISC has no say in the matter of "interpreting" the legal document. Authors put them onto files hoping the license lays down the rights they wish to retain, and grants they wish to give to the public. Then courts interpret COPYRIGHT LAW FIRST, then what the author's license grant really says. ISC does not enter into the picture, except as they were the first to craft the legal document in that way. In fact, the ISC-style license that OpenBSD uses is... a tiny bit different. In fact, the ISC license has gone through a variety of mutations over the decades. It is an attempt to be a shorter easier to understand version of the 2-term BSD license (but it is apparent many people still can't understand that copyright notices have an implied and invisible full copyright act before them). > That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that > requires preserving the license. Copyright law does. When you are holding a gun to my head, there is no piece of paper in front of my head saying you can't fire the gun. Do I really need to start giving grade school examples?? > In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove > the copyright, Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law, a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is pulled in the MOMENT a "Copyright (c) YYMM author" decleration is made. > The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style > licenses has been over pretty much this > point. No, it has not, because you are completely wrong! > 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. Nothing is that simple -- or all these licenses would be exactly that text you print, but they are quite clearly not, and have many many words there for a reason. AND they carry the full weight of Copyright law in with them as well. > 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. If you have a copyright notice with a license that grants SOME rights, you retain all the other rights granted in the full copyright acts of your nation (and other nations, details, details..) > > 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 only one 'Total Freedom', and it is a "Public Domain" declaration, which these licenses are not. These are full Copyright Act licenses, carrying the full of power of the Copyright, and only THEN the addition author's release surrenders some rights he has. > 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. > > 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. > > And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control > your affairs.. Wow. You are so full of balony. Get an education, please.
