Re: is this free?
Seth David Schoen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Henning Makholm writes:
> > They could simply say: To the best of our present knowledge we have
> > the only copyright to this software. We can't absolutely guarantee
> > If a third party can demonstrate a copyright claim on the
> > software, you'll need HIS permission to copy in addition to ours.
> > Then they wouldn't need to revoke anything, and that is IMO the only
> > free approach to that kind of eventualities.
> I felt that the IBM Public License did an excellent job of expressing
> this basic position. It says:
It looks definitely nice, yes.
I was wrong, though, in stating that this only free approach. The
GPL's approach is different but also free. Basically: "If you know
that some third party has a copyright on (parts of) the code and has
not licensed those under the GPL, then you *don't* need to negotiate
your own license with said third party, because in that case *our*
permission to copy is void by design".
Henning Makholm "Need facts -- *first*. Then
the dialysis -- the *analysis*."