On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:06:10AM +0200, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote:
> IANAL, so I am not entirely sure, but...
>
> In step 2, the guy who adds section B gains a copyright on the
> _entire_ text, independently of its original copyright, not just
> on section B.
I don't believe this is true
Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 04:39, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:36:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 05:58 , Branden Robinson
wrote:
> > > If you
> > >incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement
> > > terms would be "masked
IANAL
Hi
On Thursday 13 June 2002 00:07, Walter Landry wrote:
> How about adding a section 3d) to the GPL with something like
>
> d) Only distribute 100 or fewer copies in a 30 day time
> period.
If one licensee can distribute 100 copies each 30 days, not
bundled with its source code, 100
Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 05:32, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Essentially what I am getting at is the fact that just
> > because a doc and a program are shipped in the same tarball,
> > does this really mean that you need to try to cover them
> > with the same license?
>
> If they're just distribut
5 matches
Mail list logo
