<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/19/2025 5:53 PM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:43a160f8-c967-cc6b-92d2-6e733b219ec3@opensource.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The English language version of the license is problematic and
I am hoping that it is a translation issue, not a problem with
the license in its original language. One problem is that it
does not grant all the rights necessary in copyright.
Specifically it states the grant is "to reproduce, use, modify,
or Distribute" the software. However, under US law these are not
all the rights of the copyright author, which include the right
to publicly display and the right to publicly perform.* Under US
law this license would be construed as withholding the rights of
display and performance and therefore would not be an open
source license.<br>
</p>
***<br>
<p>*Because licenses are now used internationally, a better
practice for open source licenses is to grant a license to all
copyright rights without enumerating them, to ensure that the
grant is complete in all jurisdictions.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
If new licenses ought to include the full panoply of copyright
rights, and are to conform to international standards, shouldn't
they instead use the full Berne formulation of copyright rights
rather than the US formulation? In many cases they are articulated
the same, or very similarly, but in others there are distinct
differences.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:43a160f8-c967-cc6b-92d2-6e733b219ec3@opensource.org">
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>