On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
<snip> > >> I understand this, but I didn't understand why. > >> If that file is under an acceptable license then we can use and > >> redistribute it, otherwise we can't use and redistribute it IMO. > > > > you can opinion all you like but you're wrong > > > > use and distribution are two distinct and different concepts and > > rights under copyright law. it is perfectly possible to create > > licenses which allow use but not distribution and vice versa. > > > > - robert > > Furthermore, I wrote *acceptable*. And this means that I think that if > the artifact is, for example, an ALv2, BSD, MIT, W3C Software we are > allowed to do BOTH. I also think that the CPL (junit license) would be > ok, if the junit.pom was under that license. > > So you probably simply missed my "acceptable" word, otherwise tell me > why I'm wrong wrt the above licenses. if you intended to talk about apache policy then rules for use and distribution are different: for example, httpd may use GNU linux when it runs but we do not allow GNU linux to be distributed with HTTPD. if you intended to talk about the law, see above - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
