Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
> > > > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > > > > bound himself by contract
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity. This is something that
> > people pay big money for.
On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 09:03:02PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> But that is not a legal part of the promise (you can copy my code if
> you promise to be public about it), so I doubt it is legally relevant.
It's implicit and explicit in the copying -- you have to leave the
copyright notice intact and can only add to it. Interactive programs
must have an interactive display of the copyright notice.
Call it advertising, call it mindshare, call it defacto standardization,
call it whatever.. it's real enough and it's the sort of thing
corporations pay big bucks for.
Then again, I've never heard of someone getting hit by a warrantee
lawsuit on advertising or on a publicity campaign (as opposed to fraudulent
advertising or libel).