Al Foxone wrote at 04:18 (EDT) on Saturday:
> en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:License This agreement governs your download,
> installation, or use of openSUSE 12.3 and its ...The openSUSE Project
> grants to you a license to this collective work pursuant to
> the ...openSUSE 12.3 is a modular Linux operat
Rick Moen wrote at 16:55 (EDT) on Friday:
> You seem to be trying to imply without saying so that the
> source-access obligations of copyleft licences somehow give you
> additional rights in other areas _other_ than source acccess. What
> I'm saying is, no, that's just not the case.
GPL (and othe
John Cowan wrote at 19:42 (EDT) on Thursday:
> So it's perfectly parallel, reading "packages" for "patches".
Not quite, the details are different since it's different parts of the
copyright controls. Patches are typical derivative works themselves of
the original work. Thus, both the "arrangemen
FYI re Al:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> [0] And, to be clear to those who seem to have missed this point: I
> *don't* agree with Al's accusations/insinuations. In fact, I'm
> arguing against them, in case you missed it.
We have dropped "Al" from the list,
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit:
> Patches are typical derivative works themselves of the original work.
That's a very debatable point, though I doubt there is much point in
debating it here yet again. My view is that a patch by itself makes
only fair use of the original, though it's true that a *patch
Quoting Luis Villa (l...@lu.is):
> We have dropped "Al" from the list, as we believe he is Alexander
> Terekhov, and he refused to deny it when asked.
The authorial 'voice' matches.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http:
6 matches
Mail list logo
