On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:21:27PM -0800, Patrick R. Wade wrote: > Jacob Meuser wrote: > > >PRW wrote: > >>The GPL could legitimately be seen as a proprietary license, in the same > >>sense that a public park is not bonus nullius ; you can't set up a > >>homestead on it. I for my part find the world enhanced by both these > >>"unfreely free" things. > > > > > >I agree, but they are different situations entirely. the park is > >provided for by public funds. code is provided at private expense. > > > > (C)Regents of the University of California, Berkeley? Private expense? > > As to parks, the one just down the block from my house (Madison Meadow) > is owned by a non-profit; i helped pay to buy it. Is that public > expense, or private?
well, OK. nothing is completely black or white, and these are of course two examples of "special cases". http://www.dnull.com/bsd/others/26.txt obviously there were some private donations going on there. and for Madison Meadow, should the corporation dissolve, it could become property of the City of Eugene. also, being a non-profit, it does not pay taxes that would be required of private owners. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
