From: Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright was invented to cover literary work and protect the authors of
literary work. Legal documents are not literary works. There are so many
ways you can express the same contractual agreement. Thus, you may
freely copy all portions of the GPL that are
Derek J. Balling writes:
Your position seems contradictory. You support "freedom for the people",
but you don't support the right of people to pick the pieces of licenses
that best suit their needs.
The only true freedom you have is choice -- the choice of not using
software if you
"R. L. Kleeberger" wrote:
Quoting Derek J. Balling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
At 11:29 PM 4/14/99 -0400, R. L. Kleeberger wrote:
There is no reason anymore. I was still unsure whether the GNU GPL was able
to be legally modified into another license. It seems it is legal,
According to the
The author of the GPL, as far as I can infer from his writings and talking to
him, does not believe that "alteration of a copyrighted work is a PRIVILEGE,
not a right", because he does not believe that software should have any owners
at all.
Without understanding that, you can't understand the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright was invented to cover literary work and protect the authors of
literary work. Legal documents are not literary works. There are so many
ways you can express the same contractual agreement. Thus, you may
freely copy all
On 14 April 1999 at 20:52, "Derek J. Balling" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I would FURTHER go so far as to allow alteration of the licenses, but that
the "lineage" must be documented, so that people familiar with [for lack of
a better term] the OSI-BSD license (whatever they come up with)
6 matches
Mail list logo
