On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Jon Jensen <j...@endpoint.com> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Levi Pearson wrote:
> If the law itself were more liberal, there'd be no need for either. > I'm not sure how you could end up with the sort of requirements the GPL has without explicitly stating them in a license. If there's no implicit copyright to creative works, then if you publish them, anyone can modify them and not share the modifications. I guess if the law required all software to have source freely available to those it is distributed to and did not provide copyright provisions for software or allow licenses , that would do it, but that seems awfully unlikely and I'm not sure I'd call it 'more liberal'. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */