On 19 May 2000, Stephen Zander wrote:
It *used* to be that hooks explicitly for crypto-support were caught
by the BXA; you needed a general purpose help/plug-in framework to be
OK.
The recent rewrite of the regs may have relaxed this. IANAL.
Anyone who is a lawyer or knows one care to check
I agree with you and think this is an honorable things to do when the
author wishes it. I cannot agree that disrespecting an author's wishes
is the way to respect the author's program.
There's a certain level of respect that everyone deserves, but some
people have grandiose ideas of
Paul Serice writes:
Mark Rafn wrote:
Some authors' wishes are dishonorable (in some opinions).
That's a good point. I'm not sympathetic when they try to abuse the
system.
If pressed, I will break. At some point, technology should fall
into the public domain or a GPL-like
Seth David Schoen writes:
accreted on top of the copyright system, so that authors have become
quite insistent about their absolute ownership of their work, and
I should probably say that agents and publishers have become quite
insistent about their absolute ownership of the authors' work.
--
Scripsit Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm working on the argument that copyrights are so confusing because
they are really an attempt at a government subsidy to authors (to
promote the Progress, etc.), cleverly disguised as a minor market
regulation.
Hum? I've always thought that was
Some copyrights never expire. For example, my understanding is that the
UK crown copyright (a copyright owned by the government) is perpetual.
The US follows almost exactly the opposite rule, where works by or for the
government are in the public domain.
Please do not confuse copyright and
At the risk of seeming to pick nits, this is not actually the effect of
the GPL. The author of a GPL work can license it to different parties on
different terms; only authors of derivative works are so encumbered. The
author of a GPL work could even sell it, or add conditions of sale, such
as
7 matches
Mail list logo
