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

Re: Free Pine?



On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 06:12:35AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 07:00:50PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Their "logic" here is that when "this software" is copied, or
> > > distributed, it remains "this software" but that when it's modified,
> > > it is no longer "this software".
> 
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 11:45:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Okay, fine. They hold copyright on "this software". They don't hold
> > copyright on something that isn't "this software". Modified versions
> > are public domain.
> 
> Not what they're saying -- they say they hold the copyright on the
> modified versions, but they haven't issued a license for them.

Then people don't even have a right to use the modified software.  In other
words, once it is modified, it becomes like those old Unix boilerplates:

UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T

> > Let's just yank the package. UWash is obviously more interested in
> > having French Deconstructionists interpret their licenses for them
> > than software development.
> 
> That's probably as good an option as any.  Maybe better.

I like we need to make an example of these fools.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson             |   When I die I want to go peacefully in
Debian GNU/Linux                |   my sleep like my ol' Grand Dad...not
branden@debian.org              |   screaming in terror like his passengers.
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpKC26cZFyNS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: