Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:38:42 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: free sco unix Message-ID: <20110617053842.2ee905b9.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20110617030316.GB69974@guilt.hydra> References: <20110616152941.GL5630@external.screwed.box> <201106161154.06300.rsimmons0@gmail.com> <20110616162032.GN5630@external.screwed.box> <3d43539af0e60964a0406b8df304f16c.squirrel@www.magehandbook.com> <20110616182011.GO5630@external.screwed.box> <20110616184620.GB68867@guilt.hydra> <20110616192133.GP5630@external.screwed.box> <1B9EDB7CFB3ABCAA2E566153@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> <20110617000708.GR5630@external.screwed.box> <20110617025040.fbbf4c8b.freebsd@edvax.de> <20110617030316.GB69974@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:03:16 -0600, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 04:07:08 +0400, Peter Vereshagin wrote: > > > > > > It's just a matter of a freedom to speech to me. And to everyone else > > > I believe. > > > > Copyright and ownership of creation just makes sure that someone can't > > express OTHER's work as his own, as it is currently in the media in > > Germany - "honorable" academics (now politicians) got convicted having > > copied massive amounts (>50%) in their thesis, without STATING that > > they copied them (proper quoting with identification of the source). > > This is not really true. Plagiarism is not the focus of copyright; > copying is. That's why it's called "copyright" (at least in English), > and not "attributionright". There is, in fact, no law that specifically > relates to attribution per se, at least in most countries. To deal with > plagiarism, one must look at the specific case of plagiarism and see > where the act requires running afoul of some other law as well. > > Fraud would be the most obvious case, except for the fact that in most > jurisdictions one can generally only effectively pursue a fraud case if > there is money involved in the act of fraud. Copyright itself is, absent > any associated side-effects, reducible to one of two things (depending on > perspective): monopoly or censorship. It is sometimes used to punish > people who plagiarize, but only because it is often difficult to > plagiarize something without copying and distributing it somehow. Yes - fraud is exactly the word I was searching for. Sorry if I was cmp(apples, oranges); :-) > > Software publishing and licensing terms are very different, considering > > today's software. On one hand, there is code without mentioning of > > author, copyright or ownership. Then there is the "rape me" BSD-style > > licenses, the "contribute back" GPL licenses, and proprietary EULAs > > that traditionally do not take code into mind, but restrict the users > > in what they are allowed to do with programs. > > I find this a particularly biased description. Would you like to rethink > the phrasing "rape me" as a description of copyfree licensing terms as > embodied in a BSD License? It's not _my_ interpretation of the license. The term originates from the repeated discussion of "the BSD license being not free" with the counterposition that the BSD license is even _so_ free that it allows the "post-usage" of the material - i. e. take it for free, change it, give it another name, sell it for money. If a developer is FINE with this kind of "post-usage", he can use the BSD license. Luckily, developers can choose from many licenses, or write their own ones, so everyone will be satisfied according to his individual requirements. > > Keep in mind that _those_ are not licenses as the previous ones - they > > are a _contract_ that you implicitely sign (by using, by opening the > > package, by buying the software or the like). > > They're not really contracts unless you explicitly agree to them. > Implicit "agreement" is a matter of licensing, because it depends on > copyright law. As I said, it's _highly_ debatable if the EULAs as we know them do have _any_ value. How can you make an opinion about IF to sign a contract when you've signed it the moment you opened the box (in order to GET the contract)? > Contracts only depend on other laws not prohibiting them. Correct. That's why a contract cannot make the parties signing it "do unlawful things". But if no explicit laws exist... well, you can almost write _anything_ in the EULA, and if people do accept it, gotcha! > Organizations such as Microsoft, however, certainly do work hard to get > the courts to accord the same enforceability as contracts to EULAs, but > that does not mean they *are* contracts. Finally, court decisions (at least in Germany) are _individual_ decisions. Different judge, different statement. EULAs go hand in hand with mass licensing and support contracts, traditionally targeted at governments and "big business" that run legal departments where the lawyers express what they are told. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110617053842.2ee905b9.freebsd>