Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For works that are not a “script”, or that have copyright holders
> who are not an “author”, would this be a further improvement:
>
> The copyright holder of this work hereby grants irrevocable
> permission to any party who may have access to it to
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For works that are not a "script", or that have copyright holders
> who are not an "author", would this be a further improvement:
>
>The copyright holder of this work hereby grants irrevocable
>permission to any party
Please excuse the thread necromancy. Hopefully it's better to
demonstrate that I've searched the archives than not :-)
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [regarding an attempt to formulate a generally-applicable copyright
> declaration achieving the effect of public domain]
>
> "The a
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient "all rights
>> otherwise reserved to the copyright holder".
>
> Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
> a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
>
> To
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
> header:
>
> #!bin/bash
> #
> # Let this be know
Ben Finney wrote:
> Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient "all rights
> otherwise reserved to the copyright holder".
Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
To the extent permitted by law, the copyrigh
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about modification and distribution?
>
> To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
Since, as investigation into copyright laws outside the US has found,
even
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about modification and distribution?
To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.ne
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
> author(s) place no restrictions on this
On 9/26/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put
> a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works
> in pretty much all jurisdictions.
Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license
On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> >
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, th
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
> author(s) place no restrictions on this scri
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:43:22 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> PS-Please fix your mutt and/or terminal config, as the subject line should
> read:
> public domain, take ∞
> not:
> public domain, take ?$B!g
Never mind, as it appears that UTF-8 interoperability between the Debian
mailing lists and
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:01:51 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> > What about:
>> >
>> > The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
>>
>> A
On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> What about:
>
> The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain
is not c
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:21:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
>> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
>> might have an
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> What about:
>
> The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain
is not common to all countries and more where it exists it can be
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
> header:
19 matches
Mail list logo
