Ken Brown scripsit: > Ok John...I give up.
You just beat me to it. > You insist that you can own something 100% and > relinquish 100% control at the same time. There is not a single legal > precedent for this anywhere. Tell it to the FSF Marines. > So you and I will just have to disagree. You > cannot surrender rights to modify and distribute something you have a > copyright protected, and then turn around and expect all of its privileges. Waiving rights is not the same as surrendering them. > I agree with Sujita, if I GPL my software called "kb-library" I would not be > surprised to expect someone to be selling it as their own with a name > change, etc. I would expect it to be GPL of course, You have an enforceable right to so expect. No one else has such an enforceable right. > and maybe the author > will give me credit. But the hell with credit, the GPL gives an individual > the legal right to sell my idea as their own. Ideas? *boggle* Ideas have nothing to do with copyright. > In the end, a court would > challenge my claim to "rights" for the product because my transaction will > not be able to meet any key thresholds of an author's demand for copyright > law protection. Nonsense. > Particularly when the license has such vague restrictions > for derivative works. Nothing vague about it. You, sir, are a Bourbon: you have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. We know who pays your bills and why. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com "Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done." "Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery." -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
