s, but as long as it does not distribute or
> > publish that modified version (and the GPL puts it under no obligation
> > to do so), it does not have to apply the GPL to the modified code -
> > see
> > section 2.b of the GPL V2.
> >
> > I am not sure if th
> Maury Pepper wrote:
>> Tim,
>> I'd be interested to hear why you feel that way about
>> the report. I have read comments by others praising
>> it. Perhaps they have missed something.
>
> As I said, I have not read the entire report, and my observation that
> teh authors did not understand wha
to the modified code -
> see
> section 2.b of the GPL V2.
>
> I am not sure if the authors misunderstand how various open source
> licenses work, or whether the problem is their terribly sloppy use of
> language, but either way, I feel that these foregoing paragraphs would
> misin
gt; I am not sure if the authors misunderstand how various open source
> licenses work, or whether the problem is their terribly sloppy use of
> language, but either way, I feel that these foregoing paragraphs would
> misinform a naive reader. What do others think? I hope the rest of t
AIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:15 PM
> Subject: [openhealth] [Fwd: [GPCG_TALK] Open Source Software: A Primer for
> Health Care Leaders]
>
>
>> This report (see below for URL) may be of interest to subscribers of
>> this list. I haven
2006 11:15 PM
Subject: [openhealth] [Fwd: [GPCG_TALK] Open Source Software: A Primer for
Health Care Leaders]
> This report (see below for URL) may be of interest to subscribers of
> this list. I haven't read the entire document, but a glance at the
> section titled "Licensing f
This report (see below for URL) may be of interest to subscribers of
this list. I haven't read the entire document, but a glance at the
section titled "Licensing for Open Source" reveals that the authors
don't understand what they are talking about. Sigh.
Nice cover art, though.
Tim C
O
