Subject: RE: RPL 1.5 discussion
From: Walter van Holst <w.van.holst@mitopics.nl>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:12:00 +0200

 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:12:00 +0200


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
> The issue about whether executable copies must display
> notices is different from this. I doubt seriously that any
> jurisdiction in the world requires a visible attribution
> notice identifying the licensor on the screens of users of
> executable software in order to afford copyright protection
> to the software code itself or to enforce the open source
> license for that software.

There are a few jurisdictions outside the Berne Convention that might require such an
attribution (the grey countries on this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Berne
Convention.png) but those are hardly relevant in the grander scheme of things. Given
that most jurisdictions that I am aware of have chosen to apply copyright law to software
in a significantly more restrictive manner than 'classic' copyright, as in: hardly any
equivalents of fair use are applicable, any technical copy of the software (including
that made during execution of the software) is one that falls under the copyright holders'
rights etc., I am tempted to say that you are overly cautious in just doubting seriously.
Call me ethnocentric, but I am not terribly interested in the exceptions copyright law
in Afghanistan possibly provides, if something works similarily in the USA, EU, Canada,
Australia and Japan, we're mostly done anyway.

Regards,

 Walter