BigEd wrote:
I suspect the CC0 license is competently worded: it's true that in at least some EU countries, an author can't disclaim their moral right to be identified as the author, but that right isn't generally the obstacle to using some code in another project. I'd agree that an MIT or BSD license is in some ways preferable, but the CC0 seems to me to meet Marco's intent, and is very short!
Yes, it's very short.. according to our corporate copyright lawyer it's too short, he's been in court lots of times working with copyright issues. The problem is that due to the origin of copyright law (e.g. musical work) you need to state explicitly what the user can do with the work. It's been some time now since I had that one-day session with the lawyer, but what he said was something like this: You have to state explicitly that the user can use, copy, modify and distribute, as a minimum. The reason for this is historical: In the past, a composer could write a piece of music, and sell the work to a publisher. Say, back in the 17th century. Common practice. The publisher could then print and sell the music, and the composer didn't get any more money. Fine so far. However, the publisher could then modify the music, something that the composer would not be happy about. So when copyright was invented, part of the process was to prevent anyone given rights to copyrighted works to modify the work unless explicitly given this right by the composer (the original copyright owner).
Our corporate lawyer told me the typical pitfall for companies was to have a contractor develop some software for them, with a contract stating something like 'use for any purpose'. But it turns out that is not enough: The word 'use' gives you basically no rights.
There's a reason all those licenses (MIT, BSD) include those four words I listed above.. they really need to be there.
-Tor
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
