=> On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Hal Kaplan wrote: => => > Fine, Ed. Copyright law does not work that way but I am => not referring => > to copyright law. I am referring to licensing. You can => "copyright" => > your relationship with a person by marriage, => => No, you can't. => => > but your marital relationship is not going to work out if => you and your => > partner cannot come to terms on how you are going to live together. => => Of course, but completely irrelevant to software licensing. => => The only reason licensing is needed is because of => copyright. Without copyright, I can take Microsoft's code => and do with it what I like, and I can make as many copies as => I want and sell them and keep all the money for myself, or => just give them away if I like. But copyright prohibits me => from doing that. The license I receive from an author who => holds the copyright is similarly bound by copyright law. => => -- Ed Leafe
OK Ed. A couple of posts back you wrote "IONAL." I thought that meant "I am not a lawyer." I guess I was wrong about that particular meaning and that it was not an acronym after all. This discussion is very interesting and I would like to go on but it's also moot. We covered something similar to this in my wife's 1-L class last year (she is also a prof) and spent 3 days debating motion picture copyrights, derivative works, personae, likenesses, and greed. The bottom line? She loves to go to Dunkin Donuts for joe and I like 7-11. B+ HALinNY _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
