"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: >> The CAFC has ruled that these requirements are not meaningless. >> -- >They suggested that the requirements were not meaningless to the >copyright holders who get a thrill out of seeing their name in print, >but that is meaningless to me. I think that it speaks ill of those >egomaniacs who want to create such a ruckus just so that the world >might see how smart they are. Pathetic.
Perhaps you haven't read what the CAFC wrote. Here is a fragment. Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by requiring that changes made by downstream users be visible to the copyright holder and others, the copyright holder learns about the uses for his software and gains others' knowledge that can be used to advance future software releases. Please read the whole thing -- it's online at <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
