Re: Wired Article on the GPL

2000-03-31 Thread John Cowan
Richard Watts wrote: Suppose A gives me a piece of software, X, and agrees to licence it to me under the GPL. The GPL allows me to do a number of things, but, critically, section 3 requires me to distribute source code with my binaries - that's a consideration. It's clearly valuable.

Re: Wired Article on the GPL

2000-03-31 Thread W . Yip
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:09:35 -0500, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Matthew C. Weigel" wrote: Ummm... yes, you can accept or reject the GPL, if I understand it correctly. You either accept the terms of the license -- the restrictions placed on distribution, for instance -- or you don't,

Re: Wired Article on the GPL

2000-03-31 Thread Chip Salzenberg
According to Richard Watts: Of course, the author also gets vicarious benefits from the perceived greater reliability of the software he uses which is based on the software he's written, even if none of it was actually distributed to him [...] I've got a better argument there (though, of

Re: Wired Article on the GPL

2000-03-31 Thread Chip Salzenberg
According to John Cowan: Richard Watts wrote: Suppose A gives me a piece of software, X, and agrees to licence it to me under the GPL. The GPL allows me to do a number of things, but, critically, section 3 requires me to distribute source code with my binaries - that's a consideration.

Re: Wired Article on the GPL

2000-03-31 Thread W . Yip
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:51:06 -0800, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to Richard Watts: Of course, the author also gets vicarious benefits from the perceived greater reliability of the software he uses which is based on the software he's written, even if none of it was

Re: Wired Article on the GPL

2000-03-31 Thread Justin Wells
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:52:32PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote: Well, consider the possibility that we can get a court to agree that the GPL is an enforceable contract if binaries are distributed. Isn't that really the situation we are most concerned about? Not only that, but I think it's

Re: Wired Article on the GPL

2000-03-31 Thread W . Yip
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:03:08 -0800, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to W . Yip: As for intangibles like promises and forbearance, it must be recognised as having economic value before it can take on the status of consideration. I see. Thank you for grounding my speculation.