> So to re-iterate, the moral is never, ever use an archetype definition > which was not made available under a perpetual, inalienable license > which permits you to both modify the archetype and to freely distribute > it to others, without needing the copyright holder's permission to do so > - in other words, a free, open source-style license. >
Interesting points Tim. The Copyright Act might assist. Pages 66-69 of http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/244/pdf/Copyright1968.pdf IANAL, but it reads quite clearly and it does seem that those who wrote the act have thought about the need to interoperate. I hope no-one promised to change this under the Aus-US FTA. :-/ doug. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
