Re: Against DRM 1.0
Bad solution:
in this way the license is compatible only with itself.
However, artworks are different from functional works:
the concept of derivative work is not the same (it is not necessary to specify
"in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof", because a derivative artwork is a work *based* upon another work:
only substantial modifications constitute derivative artworks).
"Copyleft clause" is simple and clear, imho (I'm not a lawer).
Max
Lewis Jardine <debian@catbox.co.uk> wrote:For example, 'You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this
License.'.icense.'.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: