Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial
product for free
or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead
grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this.
Except it doesn't. With or without the GPL, if he still makes his commercial
product,
Hannah Schroeter wrote:
The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
altogether).
You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing
license notices, the other is about relicensing. One has
And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
void?
Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code.
The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different
Theodore Tso writes:
Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
the works MS Windows etc. are
Kryzstof Halasa writes:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theodore Tso writes:
hardly
A apologize for the error in attribution.
Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work.
You never need
a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries
word
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a
derivative work from
receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
elements in that work.
Of course you can.
No you can't.
What rights do you have to BSD
6 matches
Mail list logo
