Re: Why licenses don't need to be free (was: Re: Why licenses *are* free)
Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
Marcus> Hello,
Marcus> this reply is very short. I'm only adressing the technical points made.
Marcus> On Sun, Aug 16, 1998 at 04:23:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Nope. Not an infringement, if it already is guaranteed to be
>> on the system. You have no knowledge of the law, apparently.
Marcus> We do not only ship complete systems, but also single
Marcus> packages o the ftp site.
>> Rubbish. You do not need to nclude the GPL. It is a courtesy.
Marcus> This is wrong. Please read the license more carefully,
Marcus> especially point 1. [which says something about the
Marcus> redistribution of source code] and point 3, which says that
Marcus> binaries can be distributed under the terms of section 1 and
Marcus> 2.
Where does it say "in the same tar file, or in the same deb
file? It jsut says give oit to them. And give we do. You should
really read what the license says, not what you hope it means.
Marcus> See also my mail "Why we must ship at least some copyright licenses".
I shall reply to the point fully there, then.
manoj
--
The whole world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes. George
Gobel
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: