On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 06:12:35AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 07:00:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Their "logic" here is that when "this software" is copied, or > > > distributed, it remains "this software" but that when it's modified, > > > it is no longer "this software". > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 11:45:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Okay, fine. They hold copyright on "this software". They don't hold > > copyright on something that isn't "this software". Modified versions > > are public domain. > > Not what they're saying -- they say they hold the copyright on the > modified versions, but they haven't issued a license for them. Then people don't even have a right to use the modified software. In other words, once it is modified, it becomes like those old Unix boilerplates: UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T > > Let's just yank the package. UWash is obviously more interested in > > having French Deconstructionists interpret their licenses for them > > than software development. > > That's probably as good an option as any. Maybe better. I like we need to make an example of these fools. -- G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully in Debian GNU/Linux | my sleep like my ol' Grand Dad...not branden@debian.org | screaming in terror like his passengers. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpYBd73Wds1j.pgp
Description: PGP signature