Disclaimer: I don't know anything about UK copyright law, a small amount of the US stuff and more than I wish to know about Australia copyright law.
I'm seeing this sort of problem a lot lately. A vast number of people (including people who should know) don't seem to realise that most copyright laws are just a fallback state for authors of works who don't specifically set the terms that their work is distributed under. It is still always up to the author, isn't it? If the author of the work (OK, the copyright owner) says that it's OK, then there's no problem. Nobody's breaking any copyright law. If Mozilla had been developed and there wasn't a specific license agreement, they'd probably find themselves in trouble.
It's like the music I make available for nothing over the web. People can redistribute it and copy it under the terms I've specified. If I hadn't specified the terms, they'd be limited to what the (Australian) copyright laws allow.
Slashdot Mirror
Financing terrorism? Isn't that what I'm doing by paying tax?
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about UK copyright law, a small amount of the US stuff and more than I wish to know about Australia copyright law.
I'm seeing this sort of problem a lot lately. A vast number of people (including people who should know) don't seem to realise that most copyright laws are just a fallback state for authors of works who don't specifically set the terms that their work is distributed under. It is still always up to the author, isn't it? If the author of the work (OK, the copyright owner) says that it's OK, then there's no problem. Nobody's breaking any copyright law. If Mozilla had been developed and there wasn't a specific license agreement, they'd probably find themselves in trouble.
It's like the music I make available for nothing over the web. People can redistribute it and copy it under the terms I've specified. If I hadn't specified the terms, they'd be limited to what the (Australian) copyright laws allow.