On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> > I liked "This License does not exclude
> > or limit any rights You have under applicable law" because it
> > expresses that we're not trying to take away anything with the
> > license, just grant some rights.
>
> Sure, I completely see and agree with all of that, which is why my
> suggestion also dropped "copyright" and makes the specifically
> enumerated rights (from CC and MPL) into merely a list of examples of
> "applicable law." I'm just saying that without some "such as"
examples
> the language would be completely opaque and useless to a non-lawyer.
The problem with the earlier version (which I think I took directly
from MPL 2.0 but there's a similar clause in GPLv3)
Yes, it is from MPL, and I believe MPL's language is from CC (which
was the first license, AFAIK, to include a fair use clause of this
sort).
is that it
suggests to me that it only covers "fair use or whatever the local law
counterpart to it is". Referencing both 'fair use' and 'fair
dealing'
but nothing else specifically, and the use of "equivalents", compels
this interpretation, to me.
That was not the intent, but it having been pointed out, I see the
possible confusion, which is why I suggested the alternate language.
I have always thought of the audience for this clause as non-lawyers,
since (at least in theory) lawyers would know about the various
statutory protections, and that they would apply regardless.
Luis