Re: libkrb53 - odd license term
On 2004-05-31 21:15:35 +0100 Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The second paragraph is very questionable, even if the terms being
to" are free.
If the only way you can obtain it is by making a copy yourself, it is
a little hostile but applicable, I guess. Surely it's not part of the
"OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source
whether created by OpenVision or by a third party" seems like it
claim copyright in parts of derived works that they didn't create.
This smells bogus, but I believe it's accurate. The original author
and the author of the derivative probably *both* have copyrights
covering the new work. They do not try to deny a derivative's author
copyright. This seems a description of law, hence null.
IANAL, but I try to listen to them carefully when at conferences they
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Help hack the EuroParl! http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/eurovote/