[License-discuss] License Stewards
kuno at frob.nl
Fri Oct 5 21:41:04 UTC 2012
On 10/05/2012 08:27 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Kuno Woudt (kuno at frob.nl):
>> Even if this is true, someone aiming to re-use the license text for
>> a new license may not want to rely on it.
> I have my doubts about licences lacking expressive elements as that
> concept is defined in copyright law, FWIW.
I certainly expect there to be a set of licenses which do not have
enough expressive elements. But my impression is that the bar is very
low here in the Netherlands, you only need a bare minimum of creative
expression in a work to qualify for copyright protection .
>> It seems better for the license steward to either explicitly state
>> that they regard the license text as functional and not
>> copyrightable or to just license the license text appropriately.
> Er, the licence steward's opinion on that substantive legal question
> (such as it is) strikes me as lacking relevance. Either the licence as
> a work is copyrightable in accordance with its own separate nature, or
> it isn't. The judge isn't going to ask the licence steward what he/she
> thinks, but instead will analyse the work.
Over here, things are not that clear cut. Under dutch law a judge will
not look at just the literal text of a contract, but also the intent of
the text as it was understood by the parties at the time, and what the
parties could reasonably expect from each other (The so-called Haviltex
I expect this would apply to copyright licenses as well (though I could
very well be wrong, I am still not a lawyer).
Considering this in an international context, it still seems better to
explicitly license the license text. Is there any harm in doing so?
-- kuno / warp.
(sorry, links are in dutch. I haven't found good english descriptions
of either of these cases).
More information about the License-discuss