Quoting John Dupuy (j...@cattailcreek9.com): > (It is my understanding that if I put fully proprietary software up on > GitHub (with no license at all) and make it viewable by the public, > that does not give way any rights per se anyway. Other than the > implicit ability for outsiders to see it. So having the "casual > viewing" period is kind of redundant.)
My understanding is that you thereby also create an implied licence to the public to download. (But yes, not to redistribute or create/distribute derivative works.) You probably realised that, but since we're trying to be precise, I thought I'd mention it. And, perhaps more usefully: Your model reminds me just a little of L. Peter Deutsch's former dual-licensing regime for Aladdin Ghostscript (vs. GNU Ghostscript), detailed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostscript#History -- Cheers, "I am a member of a civilization (IAAMOAC). Step back Rick Moen from anger. Study how awful our ancestors had it, yet r...@linuxmafia.com they struggled to get you here. Repay them by appreciating McQ! (4x80) the civilization you inherited." -- David Brin _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
