Ken Arromdee wrote: > Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling > competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release > their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).
Really? That's not wise. How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must be disclosed? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 -----Original Message----- From: Ken Arromdee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 2:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision) On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Rick Moen wrote: > I conclude that, in general, the overwhelming majority of such > entrepreneurs are thus seeking the crippling of competing commercial > reuse -- not just attribution. So, OSI should give them the bum's rush. Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that). Is the GPL also considered unfree when applied to libraries? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
