Rjack <[email protected]> writes: >The word "exclusive" means "only the owner" and *no one else* may >"do" and "authorize". The word "authorize" is at the heart of all >copyright licenses. Because of this fact, BSD licensed code forever >remains under the BSD license unless the *owner* should choose to >"re-license" the code under another license.
I see that you are now rehashing old arguments under a new subject heading, having ended your previous flawed line of approach (i.e., that illegality of GPL terms makes them unenforceable) by entering an infinite loop (i.e., that unenforceability of GPL makes them illegal). What's the authority for your claimed meaning for the word "exclusive"? Some renegade web site like answers.com? On what basis are you denying copyright owners the right to delegate licensing authority to others? And finally, why is it that any time somebody points out a serious flaw in your argument, you interpret it as an ad hominem attack? What's your meaning of "ad hominem" -- does it mean "finding a flaw in Rjack's arguments"? -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
