-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The employer cannot say that I am not allowed to do so, since that
would violate the license.
The employer may not legally redistribute *and* then also require the
recipients to
I believe the OP must have had the following in mind software
wants to be free). A GPLed work was modified by an employer to
suit their business, but they don't intend to release it.
The license applies to anyone who is in posession of the software, no
matter who made the modifications.
Do you really believe that a copyright holder can give me
permission to make copies of files on *your* computer, whatever the
license?
Nobody made such a claim, stop inventing things.
Your right to make copies of your copy depends on the license, but
your right to refuse anyone to
This is basic copyright law, one would assume that you had
understood copyright law to participate in this discussion.
Which has what to do with the rights that are applied to a work which
does not have a copyright notice? None.
Do you know what default copyright is?
David, stop the
Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
[...] BSDL doesn't allow relicensing under the GPL. It doesn't have
LGPL like clause that allows it.
This is
ams, fass. fass. (GNU project doesn't concern it self with open
source and such.)
regards,
alexander.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
David Kastrup wrote:
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course they could be covered by the GPL if they were under the
BSDL and are now re-licensed under the GPL. Hint: read up on
licenses that are compatible with the GPL.
[...] BSDL doesn't allow
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[... derived work (i.e. derivative work under GNU law) ...]
I suppose that id lrosen belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm.
Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense
version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU
Graham Murray wrote:
[...]
Taking this in conjunction with clause 3b, even if the user is not
allowed to copy the binary from the system on which it is being run
then they are, under the terms of the GPL allowed to obtain the source
code of the program (being as it has to be made available to
Alfred M\. Szmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are not a licensee, as you are not the owner of the copy. So the
GPL language does not apply to you when it says you.
Since I'm in the lawful posession of the copy, I'm am allowed to
accept the GPL.
Non sequitur.
Section 0, section 1
11 matches
Mail list logo
