On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 10:05:29AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > The GPL does much the same. If someone distributes GPLed software > without complying with section 3 (which gives you various ways in which > you have to make source code available to the recipient), then they lose > the right to use that GPLed software. We have various licenses that > terminate if you do something "wrong" - we've just come to the > conclusion that it's acceptable that people not be allowed to do that > thing. That merely reduces to "some licenses exist which are free and some exist which are not". This is trivially satisfied by the existence of one work under the MIT license (which is free), and one under the MS EULA (which is not) - and yes, we've just come to the conclusion that one is acceptable and the other not. That's all rather obvious and not particularly interesting... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature