Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
about it in other places is that
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
MY understanding after having talked to a number of licensing experts
about it in other places is that the GPL is both a copyright license and
a contract.
For
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
same structure as the GPL) can do it.
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
I believe (IANAL) that End User License Agreements
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still think a copyright that offers a contract (ie the
same structure as the GPL) can do it.
The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license, just like both the
proposed AL-2.0 and the original AL.
MY
Ben Tilly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They were shipping something that they marketed as Perl, which behaved
differently than Perl, had been integrated into other projects, and for
which Larry Wall had little or no input.
Controling this sort of behavior with a copyright license is very
