Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/10/2010 2:11 PM, RJack wrote:
You will let me know when you find a court that legally defines
what an "open" license is.
Not necessary. Any one of them should do. There's a list here:
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical>
"Not necessary" is a dodge -- not an answer.
If you can't legally define an "open" license, then don't refer to an
"open" license in a legal context. You're not allowed to make up your
own law or facts.
Again, why is an "open" license different from any other copyright
license? You can make up great sounding pseudo legal terms but I doubt
they fool anybody but DAK.
So... why is an "open" license different from any other copyright license?
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
