On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
The author in your hypothetical is not actually violating his/her own > licence, because he/she already had statutory rights to the work's > copyright-covered rights, and didn't need a licence to get them. > Indeed; I should have put "violate" in scare quotes. This is no hypothetical, though; it is the term rewriting language Pure < https://agraef.github.io/pure-lang>, which I recommend to anyone interested in dynamically typed languages that use pattern matching (and lack constructor discipline a la Haskell). -- John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. --Gerald Holton
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
