On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen <lrosen[_at_]rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> You and I may meet in court in 35 years to argue about the word "perpetual."
If I live until then. :)
I can see how you meant "perpetual" to be (I thank you for your explanation).
Still, that does not sit well with me. How can lay people and judges know that you meant that way without seeing your post in CNI-COPYRIGHT? Also, how many people who use your license really understand your meaning of "perpetual"?
Will it be better if you take out the word "perpetual" and add another section on duration of license something like this:
That way, lay people and judges will understand that you do not mean the license to be overreaching, beyond the scope and term of copyright.
In spite of that troubling word, there is one great thing about your license (and GPL) is that I don't have to agree to your license in order to use your work. If I decline to agree to the terms and conditions in the license (by not exercising anything in section 1 as per section 9), my use of your work will be governed by the U.S. Copyright Law. Not many licenses allow this. So, not everything is lost. Yet, you can improve on that troubling word anyway.
Earlier in the same post, you wrote:
> The law always trumps when it comes to issues of public policy and it is
> unnecessary for a license to say otherwise. ...
In light of the recent case between Harold L. Bowers and Baystate Technologies, Inc., I have problem agreeing to your assertion.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
http://www.boycottcopyright.com
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 5,606
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Wed Aug 27 2003 - 19:22:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:50 GMT