Well you'll hear exactly the same from whoever else, it's a pretty
simple concept. The exact same principle is in effect when a software
company sells you a commercial license for a product that also has
some kind of evaluation license. It's their property, they can license
it under as many licenses as they like.
You seem to think there is something magic about opensource licenses
that make them different, but there isn't. They're legally the same
as any other kind of license--there are no special laws just for
opensource software (which is actually a problem, since it's hard
to do exactly what we might want to do with the existing laws.)
Justin
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:37:32AM -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 10/31/2000 10:10 PM, "Justin Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jon, hasn't this already been explained to you many times by now?
>
> Justin, I wasn't asking you for your opinion, I was asking GNU.org for their
> third party opinion and only CC'd the mailing lists to let them know what is
> up. I'm not sure how that was not clear to you given that I CC'd the mailing
> lists and sent the message TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -jon
>
> --
> http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
> http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
> http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
> http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
