Re: lprng license
On 29 Jan 1999, John Hasler wrote:
> Jules Bean writes:
> > It doesn't limit 'use of the program in a commercial environment'. It
> > limits 'commercial use of the code, by modifying it and selling the
> > resultant binaries without providing source'.
>
> "It depends on what the definition of 'use' is."
>
> Ask twelve ordinary people (the members of the jury at the trial of a
> copyright lawsuit, for example) what "commercial use of software" means and
> they will all say something like "using it to print invoices for a
> business". Suggest your definition and they will be baffled.
Of course.
I would answer the same.
Except actually in the context of that bizarre license agreement - and in
that context, the interpretation I suggested is the one which made most
sense to me.
In any case, the correct answer here is definitely to contact the author
for clarification..
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: