Hi folks, I have attempted to consolidate my response to all your heartily
given contributions in one piece. Please do go through it and tell me what
you think of what I understand.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:53:45 -0800, David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Mark Koek wrote:
-Original Message-
From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 13:59:35 -0500, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"W. Yip" wrote:
1) The (i) nature and (ii) extent of the terms/permissions in
OSS licenses.
OSS Licenses are different from conventional
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The position RMS takes...
Hi folks, I have attempted to consolidate my response to all your heartily
given contributions in one piece. Please do go through it and tell me what
you think of what I understand.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:53:45 -0800, David Johnson [EMAIL
W. Yip scripsit:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that only one
who owns the copyright can issue a license, hence in the case of
conventional licenses, the licensee cannot sublicense without express
permission from the licensor, since the licensee does not own the
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, W. Yip wrote:
I think his key ambiguity is not the word 'freedom' (which the adage
'liberty not price' explains) but instead, his (IMHO) clumsy use of the
word 'proprietary'. If RMS clarifies this word, I believe his position can
be consistent with my proposition stated
5 matches
Mail list logo
