Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Raul Miller <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 04:27:42PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We have an "owner" who authored the software and holds the copypright
> > for something distributed under GPL, and a "copier" who has made a
> > copy of it.
> Usually, what you're calling the owner is called the "author". Why
> choose different terminology, here?
Because copyright rights can be transferred, and it's the current
owner who has the rights and the power to make a grant of permission,
not the author.
> > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
> > what? What would he sue FOR?
> That's an interesting claim.
It's not a claim, it's a question.