Virtually all open licenses known to me are claimed by their developers to be based on copyright laws. These laws are extremely restrictive in terms of the use of a work of art. A rights-holder, having all these restrictions backed by law, can relinquish some of them at will. Thus, any use of a work under an open license in a way causes the user to enter into a contract with the rights-holder on somewhat different terms than copyright. There are some weak points in described legal positioning:
1.Any license based on a copyright law lasts as long as the copyright does.
2.Copyright laws provide quite a different scope of rights and restrictions in different countries.
3.Cultural affairs are not regulated by copyrights only. There are about a dozen of related laws, acts, and rulings in the US only.
Hence, a license, which is supposed to support the normal existence of a work of art, should somehow adjust to the above listed limitations in order to function. It seems necessary to provide backing for such a license today through some legal flexibility and put it in the very license body. This idea is reflected in the Authoright license.
- Войдите, чтобы оставлять комментарии