[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?
|
From: |
Rui Miguel Seabra |
|
Subject: |
Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL? |
|
Date: |
Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:22:01 +0100 |
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 12:49 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
> [...]
> > distribution is allowed by section 6.
>
> Distribution is allowed by 17 USC 109. And [L]GPL is a joke.
Said allowed distribution is:
mv /a /b
not
cp /a /b
which isn't allowed by default in copyright law.
Oh, and IBM really doesn't seem to agree with you, and seems to be
pushing its (and FSFs, and !yours) view by claiming copyright
infringement from SCO for adding restrictions...
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Is Hibernate right about the LGPL?, Simon Waters, 2004/08/26