<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Janko Mivšek <<a href="mailto:janko.mivsek@eranova.si">janko.mivsek@eranova.si</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
First, this is not my problem in my part of the world, where I am as an<br>
author protected by default. </blockquote><div><br>Janko,<br><br>Be careful with that...if that means the same thing as what it means in the US (where author's are also "protected by default"), then you may be mis-interpreting things. In the US, all authors are afforded copyright protection regardless of whether or not you include any copyright notice or license terms with your work. I *think* those copyright terms extend for the life of the author+70 years for individuals under current US law. If you were subject to that law, it would mean that by default, only you (and your estate after death) hold the "copy rights" to anything you author until 70 years after your death. That's why explicit licensing that grants copy rights is important (at least in the US). There isn't even a mechanism to declare something you author to be in the public domain (that only happens by expiration of copy rights...though I suspect a lawyer might be able to successfully argue that someone offering something "in the public domain" is effectively offering that work under a license consistent with the meaning of "public domain").<br>
<br>I think the best open source licenses are the ones that are as simple and clear as possible. The more complicated a license, the more you'll have nauseating threads like this one (and fewer words means less opportunity for debate about the meaning of those words).<br>
<br>- Stephen <br></div></div><br>