oklaw the same way he treats Boycottnovell: he
doesn't read it, but jumps to its defense at nearly every opportunity.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
enwatcom.org/index.php/Main_Page>
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
it matter that they weren't *forced* to do that?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
is an improvised piano version, so it is
arguable that the preferred form of the work for modifying it is the
recording itself. In other words, that is arguable being distributed in
source form.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-mi
at is source for music?
The score? Copies of the separate tracks from before mixing?
The FSF says the GPL is for code. That's why they don't use GPL on, say,
documentation. You should consider using a license such as one of the
Creative Commons licenses, that works r
that forking of the MySQL code base will be particularly dependent
on FLOSS community contributions - more so than on in-company
development - the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will
present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for
MySQL.
--
--
for
multiple reasons. The first one discussed is that the revenue to fund
MySQL development comes from commercial license sales, which a forked
version would not have, since only Oracle will be able to sell
commercial licenses.
The one you mention, incompatibility with GPLv3, is the second reas
ption of GPL. The FSF
thought that it didn't.
Can you point out where the GPLv2 clearly defines what exactly qualifies
for the system component exception?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ts of the operating
> > system on which KDE ran.
> >
> > But the FSF threw a fit over this, until the makers of Qt changed the
> > license.
>
> Huh? Qt was not merely licensed "non-GPL" but non-free. KDE relied on
It was not non-free.
--
--Tim Smith
__
ot;danger" or "complexity".
The KDE developers were operating in good faith when they dynamically
linked to non-GPL Qt. This is allowed under GPLv2, because Qt was
something normally distributed with the components of the operating
system on which KDE ran.
But the FSF threw a
pes?
My copyright class in law school was taught using the Socratic method,
and when it was my day to be grilled by the professor, that is the very
question he chose to torture me with. Thanks for bringing up that
horrible memory! :-)
--
--Tim Smith
___
ge and diverse, so you need to find the
particular corner of that universe that you are interested in before
getting down to the nitty gritty of specific recommendations from people.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the money to fight, and it was provided as an attack on Apple. Quit a
few on Groklaw think that's good enough to take Apple's side without
question.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.
as gone.
However, that evening at home, my comment was visible! Checked again at
work the next day, and it was gone...and it was there again from home.
Looks like it is going it by IP address, so I could see it from the
original IP address, but people at other addresses
oks?id=TAHtXWpA9soC&pg=PT86&lpg=PT86&dq=contract+choice+of+law+germany&source=bl&ots=yI-D_EnoIV&sig=29DnNn_DNS9z1Das0-T0_koK3Ug&hl=en&ei=Vv6NSqKHFYrQtAPas8iECw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false>
2. <http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/literature/foreignlaw.htm>
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
icated a
> matter governed by an alien legal system, where the two systems have
> no jurisdictional connection (such as two states in the USA)?
Ask a German lawyer. Or go to a German law school and ask a student
there, who will be able to give dozens of cases easily.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
de/EN/beitrag.asp?t=Conflict-of-law-real-estate-mortgage>
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
The court will use X's rules of civil procedure. It will use X's
evidentiary rules.
Basically, in a contract case, specifying the law of jurisdiction Y
essentially just means that the parties are agreeing to Y's rules for
interpreting the contract. I see nothing in that that conflict
law of
another state and country when handling a contract or license case.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
On the licenses list at fsf.org, there are several licenses in the "free
but not GPL compatible" list that appear to be incompatible because they
contain a choice of law clause.
Why would a choice of law clause make a license incompatible with GPL?
--
-
license. It could be
quite reasonably argued that what you are doing is making an OFFER to
everyone, which they accept by actually acquiring a copy of your
software (or, more likely, by distributing it or modifying it).
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-di
run, modify and propagate that work,
> subject to this License.
That license comes from the copyright owner, not the non-exclusive
licensee who conveys the work. That's why only the copyright owner has
standing to sue over a GPL violation.
--
--Tim Smith
_
ly
> the same time, and priority must be given to one. That means it doesn't
> apply to licenses granted clearly before the copyright transfer, and so
> your worry was groundless.
Where does it say it only is for cases where the license and the
transfer happen at roughly
xclusive copyright licenses can be granted orally
> or implied from conduct.
> ...
> The existence of either an exclusive or nonexclusive license creates an
> affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement.
205(e) is the problema
In article <87my70cekt@thumper.dhh.gt.org>,
John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by "signature"
> > you mean an autograph signature. One can make a legally-binding
> > commitment without putting
In article <87zlb0cqeg@thumper.dhh.gt.org>,
John Hasler wrote:
> Tim Smith writes:
> > Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature?
>
> The USA has no such statutory requirement (I assume that by "signature" you
> mean an autograph
In article ,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > Industry practice overrides a statutory requirement for a signature?
>
> I think so. In any case, there is also 17 USC 203:
> <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203>
> (3) Termination of the g
In article <_sl8m.52996$9p.25...@newsfe08.iad>,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > I wonder how many open source projects provide a written instrument
> > signed by the copyright owner?
>
> The GPL <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html> say
In article ,
Tim Smith wrote:
> Suppose I create a copyrighted work. I release it under a license such
> as GPLv2. You use it, in a way that requires permission of the copyright
> holder, but is in accord with GPLv2, so you are OK.
>
> Suppose now that I transfer the copyr
the
land, so it is not a good comparison. A more fitting analogy would be if
you gave your neighbor whose yard was not fenced permission to keep
their dog in your fenced yard when they are away during the day. A buyer
of your land would have no obligation
about if the copyright assignee
wishes to stop you from copying, modifying, and distributing the
software?
The GPL is meant to be a bare license, not a contract, but doesn't that
mean it provides no protection if the ownership of the work changes?
--
--Tim
quot;) and his others numerous "imminent" MS' death
> > "predictions" aside for a moment,
>
> How about actual references?
You could put that quote he gave into Google, and it will find the
article on Moglen's site.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article <4a561002$0$7972$a729d...@news.telepac.pt>,
Rui Maciel wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
> > Which means the kernel will be GPL.
>
> The OS kernel is a major component of any operating system. Some
> people even defend that the kernel is the OS. So that
In article ,
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > In article ,
> > 7 wrote:
> >> Rjack the stupid 1 wrote:
> >>> Will it be GPL licensed
> >> It is GPL'd.
> > By what psychic power did you ascertain this? All Goo
In article ,
7 wrote:
> Rjack the stupid 1 wrote:
>
>
> > Will it be GPL licensed
>
> It is GPL'd.
By what psychic power did you ascertain this? All Google says is that it
will be open source.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu
d it be acceptable to put that source code
in another missile and fire that at the terrorist, since that is the
manner the original software was distributed?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu
rn that doesn't actually fall under the
contract, and many a student has wasted a lot of valuable time writing
up a long analysis of that contract, instead of writing the correct
answer: "the contract is not applicable".
--
--Tim Smith
___
a service on that SOAP server. What copyright
right of the server code author have I potentially infringed?
I'm not copying, distributing, or making a derivative work of any of his
server code, so why do I care about whatever copyright license the
server code is under?
--
--Tim Smith
_
In article ,
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2009-05-07, Tim Smith wrote:
> > In article ,
> > JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >> No, the question is whether or not code that is entirely dependent
> >> on some other person's work for it's existence is a derivative wo
the library. There might be some copying of structure
definitions for the interface, but those are functional elements of the
library that are not subject to copyright.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
not change what the answer is (for
example, if you are accused of making a derivative work of X, and Y
exists, then you can simply claim you copied from Y, not X, and the
authors of X will probably have a hard time proving it was really X you
copied from).
--
--Tim Smith
__
ary drivers in the kernel violate GPL? There are a fair
number of kernel developers (not to mention RMS and others from the FSF)
who think Linus does *not* understand GPL.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http:/
In article ,
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > In article <58_ll.37296$9a.27...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >>
> >> Nobody can honestl
ould it be OK for Comcast to use GPL code in their DVR? Note that
their DVR stops functioning if you are not hooked up to their system or
your account is not in good standing.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
htt
verage
person a good opportunity to notice the CDs are slow at seeking.
Finally, a decent fraction of consumers will have experience with
running console games of CDs. They get decent performance there.
There's simply nothing in their experience to indicate that a live CD
should be slow, and t
that information into trial as part of
their rebuttal to the damages part of Microsoft's case.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ent as part of your discovery requests. (Well, *you* won't ask.
Your lawyers will ask, and the lawyers and your damages expert will get
to see the answers, but *you* might not get to see them--all you might
see is an average that the damages expert computes and testifies
ething in the ballpark of what
Microsoft normally licenses these patents for.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
c
> purpose?
What do any of those questions have to do with copyright law?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ithout knowing the details?
I drew no such conclusion. The only conclusion drawing has been from
you--you've concluded that because you don't know the details, it must
have been a tiny settlement.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss maili
om would be announcing the amount.
In reality, typically in a settlement over this kind of business
litigation, if one side wants the terms kept secret, the other side will
agree. Often, both sides want it secret.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-dis
et
caught violating the GPL a year or two later, you should be ready to
switch over to your non-GPL code.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
In article <873adra261@blp.benpfaff.org>,
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Tim Smith writes:
>
> > A lawsuit is very disruptive for both parties. Pretty much anyone, not
> > matter what side they are on, would rather have a suit that takes 2
> > years in a far away dist
f drug cases arise, it is very hard
to get any civil case on the calendar).
Lately, though, some companies that have filed in EDT before (Acacia,
for one) have been filing elsewhere, so there are signs another district
might be becoming the next patent hot spot.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ce that either of you do
not know what IANAL means. As Wikipedia notes, this is one of the most
popular internet acronyms, and it is almost impossible for anyone to
have the groups both of you read without having come across it numerous
times.
--
--Tim Smith
___
do is give him permission. Give him an explicit license that
says he may use the code under the terms of GPL, with the special
exception that he may use proprietary graphics data files. People on
this group can probably help with the exact wording.
--
--Tim Smith
_
ld
give them the kind of monopoly that patents grant--if you want a
patent-type monopoly, you have to get a patent.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
ht can be ignored unless the author can show some degree of
> harm to himself.
Where did you get that idea? Not from the copyright statute, nor from
the case law.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://l
In article ,
Rjack wrote:
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/complaint-2008-12-11.pdf
Why would you expect a dismissal?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
the
GPL makes me responsible for providing source code to the buyer. 17 USC
109 tells me I don't need permission of the copyright owner, so again, I
don't have to care what GPL says.
Answering the "do I need permission?" question often requires figuring
out if you are making
terface as mine. They do
such a good job that binary schedular files for Linux work out of the
box with Windows.
Does this change the answer to #1 or #2? Does it matter whether or not
your scheduler or mine was written after Microsoft makes the
aforeme
be a collective work that
contains many separate works: the game code, the individual works of
art, and the individual works of sound. Distributing them all together
would fall under the "mere aggregation" part of GPL.
--
--Tim Smith
___
riginal to be eligible for
copyright protection.
A better statement would be that a work that is eligible for copyright
protection becomes copyrighted as soon as it is written down.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gn
hat a program
> which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that
> library.
Or look at the unauthorized game cartridge cases. Those are directly on
point for the "linking makes a derivative work" argument, and the courts
have pretty uniformly decided that they
?
>
> Such documents are also free documents, so are verbatim only
> documents.
Documents with those restrictions are not free by any principled
definition of free commonly used in the tech world. They may be free by
the FSF's definition of "free", though, wh
ibuted under GPL because that's
the license the non-NSA parts are under, but if you wanted to pick out
the NSA parts and do something with them that is against the GPL, that
would be fine.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-
d be
Note that GPLv2 with the Classpath exception is not compatible with
GPLv2. That is, you cannot take arbitrary code from a GPLv2 project
and incorporate it into GPLv2+CPE code.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discus
t; FARGO BANK, N.A., v. The UNITED STATES; 88 F.3d 1012 (CAFC 1996)
However, first you have to have a contract. With an offer looking to
form a unilateral contract, it is offeree's performance that acts as
acceptance of the contract. If offeree does not perform, as specified
in the off
yright liability is for what the
defendant did with the file AFTER downloading.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
k a derivative work.
A program is a utilitarian object, and whatever is necessary to
interface to it is not subject to copyright.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
video game cases, where third parties made cheat
add-ons for video games, without permission of the game makers.
The relevant question is whether or not X is a derivative work of Y, not
whether or not it "depends on...in some manner".
--
--Tim Smith
_
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it
> >> deserved.]
> >
> > Can you give any spec
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different
> > pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the
> > derivative work prepara
ous
> vendors who are happily distributing GPLed code and making money,
> but you never know.
What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different
pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the
derivative work preparation right?
--
--Tim Smith
__
a skim is all it
> deserved.]
Can you give any specific criticism?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
on't *need* any GPL rights in order to
distribute it, so the question remains: is whether or not a copy is
lawfully made determined at the time the copy is made, or can it depend
on later events?
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
es
not "accompany" the distribution of the GPL software--it is *part* of
the distribution. To "accompany", I'd say it has to either be a
separate file that comes with the GPL file(s), or it has to be bundle
with the GPL file(s) in an archive format that is reasonably com
given server, should be new
exclusive rights, in addition to the current copyright exclusive rights
(copying, making derivative works, distribution, displaying, and
performing).
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
t. Can I
distribute that physical CD?
I think that if I were making the copies with intent to distribute, then
a good argument could be made that the copies are unlawful. The court
would see this as trying to cheat on the license, and find some way in
e
ow you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without
actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is
accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there
is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it
has to be from a verizo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > If you are distributing your copies
>
> What gave you the right to make copies?
GPL. For example, suppose I run a small business. I have 20 computers.
I want to instal
tiff brings forth essentially the same case with the
same flaw. We'd be seeing sanctions by now, probably. Thus, I infer
that the copyrights must be registered).
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
p have probably seen first sale in action. If
you've ever loaned a book to a friend, you've participated in an
exercise of first sale rights. Without the first sale doctrine, you'd
be violating the copyright owner's distribution rights!
--
--Tim Smith
_
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > 1. Acquire a lawful copy of a GPL binary. Doesn't matter how--download
> > it from somewhere, compile it from source, whatever.
> > 2. Make copies of the binary
write such a
novel, and then give the rights to the government, it would NOT become
public domain).
I suppose one could imagine a situation where the copyright ends up
owned by the government of a small country, and some natural disaster
completely wipes that country off
t recognize bare licenses, and GPL *would* be seen as
a contract on those jurisdictions. Maybe that provides a saving
throw--if someone tries to blatantly circumvent by making copies and
distributing under first sale, you sue them in a jurisdiction that would
treat GPL as a contract).
--
--Tim Smit
as far back as 2005:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1569a83d255fb3be?hl=en&dmode=source>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1569a83d255fb3
be?hl=en&dmode=source>
--
--Tim Smith
_
this was a
no-no. They court said that once the record company gave them away,
first sale applied. It doesn't matter that they were gifts.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
al arrangement requiring B to throw out
the source, but then I think A would be violating GPL, so that won't fly.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
cards the source disc because they don't need it
themselves, and the device works fine for their customers without it, so
discarding it means one less item they have to put in the box.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
GPLv3. It's similar to 3b of GPLv2, with
the notable difference that it is only for the case where you distribute
the object code on a physical medium.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
e the source CD, and it will avoid ill will. But I
will not be surprised if a lot of Y's consider the box to be a black
box, and pretty much ignore the source CD that comes with it.
Anyway, I think First Sale is going to become a big deal in the world of
free software licensing. I'm
al
software, this fact pattern arises any time some third party makes an
add-on for a closed system without permission of the vendor of the
closed system.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
tion is a prerequisite to suit.
Can anyone explain what is going on here? Is the search at
www.copyright.gov not up to date? Are the defendants not bothering to
check because they just assume the work must have been registered? Is
Busybox actually a n
ing on.
I have yet to encounter a C++ compiler that will refuse to compile a
program if it does not use polymorphism, passing objects by reference,
and templates. There is nothing forcing someone who writes a kernel in
C++ to do those (possibly) questionable things.
--
--Tim Smith
mean, get real.
Who said D would be excused from compliance? I sure didn't.
If P prevails, D will be ordered to stop infringing.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
s usually
go with, is for the court to ask what would have happened if D had
obeyed the actual license that D had. That requires much less
speculation.
Under that analysis, P expected to make $0 off of D's use of the
software, so I don't think it is likely the court would award much
nfringement, or within three months of publication. Most free
software authors do not bother with copyright registration.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
sing of
why it is best to make your open source licenses be contracts.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
oncerned. That's the intent of the
licensor.
If they had wanted something stronger, they could have easily written
the license to define modification as being any change from the original.
--
--Tim Smith
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
