Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
> > about it in other places is that the GPL is both a copyright license and
> > a contr
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
>> proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
> MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
> about it in other plac
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
> > same structure as the GPL) can do it.
>
>The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
>proposed AL-2.0 and the original A
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
> same structure as the GPL) can do it.
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
I believe (IANAL) that End User License Agreemen
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > They were shipping something that they marketed as Perl, which behaved
> > differently than Perl, had been integrated into other projects, and for
> > which Larry Wall had little or no input.
>
>Controling t
Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They were shipping something that they marketed as Perl, which behaved
> differently than Perl, had been integrated into other projects, and for
> which Larry Wall had little or no input.
Controling this sort of behavior with a copyright license is very dif
