Sure I can, I am talking about the actual _LICENSE_. The FSF
even sells nicely printed copies of it, did you know that?
You mean the license _document_. The license is an abstact bundle of
rights.
You deserve a cookie for nitpicking. :-)
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. You can use it to license commercial software, but
since the demand is that it is to be licensed as a whole at no
charge, while you can charge for a copy of the _software_, the
license itself is not a
Not really. You can use it to license commercial software, but
since the demand is that it is to be licensed as a whole at no
charge, while you can charge for a copy of the _software_, the
license itself is not a commercial item.
Sure it is, you can charge several millions for a copy
Alfred M. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. You can use it to license commercial software, but
since the demand is that it is to be licensed as a whole at no
charge, while you can charge for a copy of the _software_, the
license itself is not a commercial item.
Sure
I think I better stick to either public domain or commercial
licenses for now, at least until I become a lawyer or able to
afford one!
Great, then you can stick with the GPL, since it is a commercial
license as well!
___
gnu-misc-discuss
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:15:48 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
Any person who distributes GPL3 code cannot subsequently sue the
recipient of that code - or anybody else - for any alleged patent
violations because the GPL3 requires that or else that person
Kurt Häusler wrote:
I am a bit worried myself as I used to work for a company writing open
source linux drivers (but not in the kernel or any distros) implementing
patented protocols and algorithms with permission, under the gpl2 (or any
later version), just trying to do the right thing,
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:55:07 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now I wrote most of the code, and placed the copyright under
ownership of the FSF.
How so?
By leaving their name in the text of the gpl license file rather than say
overwriting it with either
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:55:07 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now I wrote most of the code, and placed the copyright under
ownership of the FSF.
How so?
By leaving their name in the text of the gpl license file
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:24:38 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By leaving their name in the text of the gpl license file rather
than say overwriting it with either my name or my employer's
name. Which is standard practice right?
Sigh. That makes the
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:36:20 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
If *you* own the copyrights, then *you* can choose what license you want
to release the software under.
If your company owns the copyrights, then your company can choose what
license it wants to release the software under.
Kurt Häusler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:36:20 +1200, Jonathan Walker wrote:
If *you* own the copyrights, then *you* can choose what license you want
to release the software under.
If your company owns the copyrights, then your company can choose what
license it
You have to admit it. Microsoft's lawyers are real morons.
Just think about it. They are probably making $250,000 a
year. The top tax bracket is 37.6 percent. Now you have to
assume since they are really stupid that they don't know
about tax shelters and the like. So that leaves them paying
rjack wrote:
You have to admit it. Microsoft's lawyers are real morons.
Just think about it. They are probably making $250,000 a year. The
top tax bracket is 37.6 percent. Now you have to assume since they
are really stupid that they don't know about tax shelters and the
like. So that leaves
14 matches
Mail list logo
