On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Jon Jensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Levi Pearson wrote:
> If the law itself were more liberal, there'd be no need for either.
>
I'm not sure how you could end up with the sort of requirements the
GPL has without explicitly stating them in a license. If there's no
implicit copyright to creative works, then if you publish them, anyone
can modify them and not share the modifications. I guess if the law
required all software to have source freely available to those it is
distributed to and did not provide copyright provisions for software
or allow licenses , that would do it, but that seems awfully unlikely
and I'm not sure I'd call it 'more liberal'.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
