Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
will be major differences between the anglo-american and the european way. (and other ways too, but about these i know even less)
I think that they are not as big as you'd guess because there are
international treaties that are all about making these laws work in
the same ways across borders. Copyright, patents, and trademarks act
quite similarly in all countries that participate in these treaties
(which is most).
not quite true. (i'd say it is an anglo-centristic viewpoint ;-)) after all, in anglo-american space we have to deal with "copyright" whereas in continental europe we still have the "urheberrecht" which is something really different.
things are certainly better in CreativeCommons (among other things because they are less u.s.-centric than the FSF).
Hmm, that's debatable. They don't have a license without an
attribution clause, it's not even an option. And the CC attribution
clause is much worse than the BSD attribution clause ever was.
yes i agree here. i was just trying to say that the creative commons is much more "court-proof" in different countries since it has been adapted to really fit within the legislature of these.
the GPL never had anything but the u.s.-american copyright law in mind, which makes it not necesserarily fit for other countries. i do not say that the GPL is bad or futile in europe, it is the license i use...
mfg.asdr IOhannes