John Cowan wrote:
You insist that you can own something 100% and relinquish 100%
control at the same time. There is not a single legal precedent
for this anywhere.
Tell it to the FSF Marines.
What GPL does is to relinquish control over *redistribution* of the
material not the material
Mahesh,
I appreciate your comments. It is good to hear from you. Fortunately (or
unfortunately) court precedent trumps assertion. Just because a lot of
people believe that something is right does not make it right - ethically or
legally. There are over a hundred examples of things that were
IANAL, but I think I have finally nailed this sucker. If anybody
disagrees with me please let me know why.
You have the right to do anything with a copyrighted work only if you
have agreed and complied with (and read) the license.
If you have not read the license, then you are not aware of
Mahes T Pai wrote:
You will be aware that people can enter into contracts *without*
signing a shred of paper. Offers, and acceptance can be by
conduct also.
Not that I am disagreeing with you or the OSL just making sure that
every one is aware of the position of law.
You're right.
Larry,
Perhaps you're still confusing terms. Those sections of the QPL don't
require that copyrights of modifications be passed to the copyright
holder. They are simply grant-back licenses, albeit a little awkwardly
phrased.
-- I still maintain that BXAPL section 12.5 is a nearly exact copy
Ken Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GPL advocates want the GPL to become the king of all free software licenses.
And if wants to be the king, it will have to go through the fire of legal
review in a court.
Not really. The GPL relies more on public opinion than it does on the
force of law.
On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:42 am, Brendan Hide wrote:
You have the right to do anything with a copyrighted work only if you
have agreed and complied with (and read) the license.
Bull pucky! The vast majority of copyrighted works don't even have licenses.
Reaching my hand over about two
7 matches
Mail list logo