[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Licence of SteelBlue

On 26 Jul 2000, Henning Makholm wrote:

> No, they *require* that the licensee licence his modification to
> them, which is legal enough. In a sense, the GPL also says something
> similar: roughly, "if you distribute modifications, you must give us
> (and everyone else, by the way) the same rights to your modifications
> as we give you to the original".

In my eyes GPL doesn't say "give us", but  "give those, who receive this
program by you".

And as I read the paragraph, it is about the copryright, not about rights
to "use" it. (Where use shall mean use,copy,share,distribute,modify,...)

> No. It's very common in licenses, free ones too, to say that the
> license terminates if licensee does not meet his obligations (which
> typically include not attacking the freedom of the program). Saying
> so is strictly redundant, since that is the way contracts normally
> work, but it does not harm if some paranoid lawyer wants to state
> the obvious explicitly.

Is it about termination in other cases or was it about termination if they
want it to terminate?

  Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: