[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Rjack |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:22:20 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
As part of a bilateral contractual agreement where two authors
agree to exchange copyright permissions in order to provide
third party benefits.
No, as a copyright license from the rights holder to the
combining author, if and only if that author follows the GPL when
he copies and distributes the combined work.
"That argument simply doesn't hold water. Covenants to offer source
code in this and such a way are not "scope of license", they're
return consideration. The GPL is a true offer of bilateral contract.
And yes, I've read lots of unfounded assertions from the FSF and
others on the subject, and this and other arguments have been made
with a reasonable degree of skill on debian-legal, and I see no
reason to repeat them on d-d."
http://osdir.com/ml/peer-to-peer.waste.general/2005-05/msg00036.html
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Rjack <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/27
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/27