"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dsjol.24796$ug1.19...@newsfe16.iad...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:51:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
So I think we can both agree that copyright today goes too far.
I don't think that computer source should have copyright protection
period.
If computer source doesn't have copyright protection then, of course,
it's fine to distribute GPL'd code without including the license. As
you're advocating that it's ok to distribute without including the
license, then you're conclusion is that source code doesn't have
copyright protection?
I said that I think that it should not have copyright protection not that it
doesn't have it. That would require a change to the law, eh? But then
there wouldn't be any issue for the SFLC to sue over either. If you somehow
got a hold of Microsoft's source, you would be able to use it, too. Of
course if they were being protective, you would probably have to violate
some other law to get your hands on it, so you might still be at some risk.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
