Expat
Programming Lang: JavaScript
Description : Universal Module Definition for use in automated
build systems
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 16:51 -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
That's fine, but as you probably do realize, the word use is too
wide and too unspecific. Having a license that doesn't state
specifically what rights are or aren't granted is due to bring
misunderstandings.
I agree, in part.
.
(I know, pretty big if.)
So, if one is to continue entertaining the idea that the fair license is
not a free license, then they must hold true that the above is *not* the
definition of 'use' in the context of copyright law. If that is the
case, what is the definition of the word 'use
James William Pye wrote:
Greetings(Please be sure to CC me!),
First, my apologies for not joining the conversation around the time
that it transpired, but it was not until recently that I had noticed it.
Second, my apologies to Mr. Welch for suffering from the controversy
created by the license
On 4/26/05, James William Pye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I get into any details, this discussion is about the definition
of the word 'use' in the context of copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17[1]),
and perhaps whatever extra insights the connotations of the fair license
might provide within
the context of the source is no way to make an appropriate
translation. If the above is the definition of 'use' in the context of
copyright law, then usar is an inappropriate translation as it fails
to carry the same effect/meaning.
To give a more extreme example of the above, if instrument were
Margarita Manterola writes:
If what you want to say is that the person gets all the benefits of
owning the software (this is sort of weird, because software is kind of
hard to 'own'), then you should say that.
One can (and usually does) own a copy of a piece of software. US copyright
law
7 matches
Mail list logo
