On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent
to saying we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing.
I don't think this is true, if you accept the
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for
demanding source from the author.
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second group
is *much* easier to draw a line around. So we use
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[ more good argument snipped]
Even if there were *no* legal limitations of any kind on the copying
and modification of any software, there would *still* be no way to
give that liberty to users, since (when user and
6 matches
Mail list logo
