"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote:
> If so, the FSF position would be that they own the
> copyright interest and THEY are assigning YOU a non-excusive copyright
> interest to make derivative works under the terms and conditions of the GPL.
In the case of works published by the FSF, certainly. In t
"Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote:
> However, my sense of the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation is relying
> only on Copyright for the GPL, and that there is nothing but a conditional
> (non-exclusive and royalty free) license of copyright conveyed in the GPL
> (apart from the "no warranty" aspec
ubject: RE: How To Break The GPL - Copyright versus Contract
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Open-Source License Discussion
> Subject: RE: How To Brea
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I guess here it is a matter of asking the FSF whether they see themselves as
> having accomplished anything else, since when we employ the GPL we appear to
> be assigning copyright to the FSF.
Although members of GNU, and a few other people, assig
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 6:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Open-Source License Discussion
> Subject: RE: How To Break The GPL - Copyright versus Contract
>
>
> My apologies
My apologies for not being clear. That is all I meant by speaking of EULAs.
They are for purposes other than what is (thought to be) dealt with solely
by copyright.
However, my sense of the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation is relying
only on Copyright for the GPL, and that there is nothi
6 matches
Mail list logo
