"Daniel A. Koepke" writes:
> ( i) Royalty-free : they don't have to pay you
> ( ii) Perpetual : it doesn't expire
> (iii) Irrevocable : you can't revoke the grant (i.e., deny them use)
> ( iv) Non-exclusive : i.e., not for just what is specified: it et al.
> ( v) Sublicensable : they can license it to whomever they want
I agree the license is evil, but I think (iv) actually is not as bad;
I'm also not a lawyer, but I think "non-exclusive" just means that
other people might have the same rights, including you. In other
words, if Yahoo had *exclusive* rights to your work, *only* they could
sublicense it, create derivative works, etc.. However since you're
only granting them NON-exclusive rights, it means other parties
(including the poster) may also use the content in the ways specified.
-JE
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST