On Tue, 18 May 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:
Wilfredo Sanchez writes:
Well, that sort of scrutiny _has_ been applied to the GPL on many lists for
many years, so that many people are sick of it. :-) Take a look at
gnu.misc.discuss, and you should find such a thread fairly quickly.
Yeah, and it
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
Re: the GPL standing up in court: a law student mailed me a 100+ page thesis
on that topic. He said it would stand up in court. I have not yet had time to
study his arguments thoroughly, too much travel. Hopefully I can do this next
week.
Did that law
At 09:09 AM 5/19/99 -0500, Patrick St. Jean wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
Did that law student take a look at some of the federal circuit court
rulings concerning shrink-wrap licenses? The gist of them is that unless
there is a signature on a document, they're pretty much
Bruce Perens writes:
I don't agree. It's just like the public-domain to GPL case. You have the
option to distribute the program under the LGPL. You choose the GPL. You
re-distribute that. The person to whom you redistribute it has the option to
use the GPL, just as you did.
Sure, but the
Wilfredo Sanchez writes:
So this linking business is RMS's interpretation, but is not in
the license text. I know certain other licenses get heavily
critiqued for being vague, but I don't see the same scrutiny applied
to the GPL here.
Well, that sort of scrutiny _has_ been applied
Fred:
Protecting one's right to
share code by removing one's right not to doesn't seem like a Good
Thing to me.
You're not considering the unpaid contributor. If my only choice was
a license like the BSD, I would contribute a lot less. The protective
provisions of the GPL are what make
6 matches
Mail list logo
