[copyleft-next] Comments on 0.1.1

Pamela Chestek pchestek at gmail.com
Sat Feb 16 14:52:41 UTC 2013


>> 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.
>

I completely disagree. They aren't statutory "protections," they are
statutory defenses. I think it is a good plaintiff's argument that a
license can waive raising statutory defenses and software licenses
routinely do so, e.g., by prohibiting reverse engineering, which is a
fair use. I agree with CC that it is an important carve out to have.

Pam


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list