--- Cory Petkovsek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. SOFTWARE > > The compiled or runtime version of the PROGRAM. > > > > 3. SOURCE CODE > > The preferred form of the PROGRAM used for modification. > This is a cyclical definition. Replace PROGRAM with the definition > (SOFTWARE|SOURCE CODE) and you start having a recursive definition. #1 and > #3 need better definitions.
thanks, i'll do that. > I would avoid putting your personal philosophy in the license. People > may use your license because they like credit where credit is due, but > disagree completely with the specifics of your personal philosophy. > For instance, I disbelieve that you have seen enough of the world to > really understand human nature. I suspect your experiences are limited > to living in the American bubble. Whether this is right or wrong, good > or bad, I won't say. I'm only pointing out that the above paragraph is > based upon your experiences which may be vastly different from the > users of this license. They will then have a corresponding vastly > different understanding of human nature. Another instance, some people > put IP in the public domain. We could argue that they are really > the ones "playing nice" and sharing, while those selfish egotistical > users of this license "need their props" (credit). tell that to RMS and the FSF crowd. i'm not going to get into this debate because it's pointless. my beliefs and yours are different. need i remind you how many religions exist, much less how many different _licenses_ exist? besides, i recall saying something about "if the software was truely free, it would be in the public domain"... > Note that you are forcing the user to have alternative licensed data. > Perhaps they consider the graphics for their program as IP and want > only to receive credit for it, but would otherwise want it > redistributable. i am considering contracting graphics/data work to other friends of mine, and they may have different ideas about IP than i do. hence, the statement. > Finally, but most importantly, if you are serious about developing a > license that will hold up in court to protect one's IP rights, you > would have an IP-hip lawyer look at it. Otherwise, the lawyers of some > potentially infriging company will take one look at the license, find a > legal loophole and use the software to their hearts content. They may > also use it regardless of a loophole, just to see if the copyright > holder has enough financial resources to sue. in that case, what's the point of the GPL? ===== Justin Bengtson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) E-mail, or any form of writing, is not true communication, and can only result in the misinterpretation of meanings. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
