On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:11:48 +1100 Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> The "may be non-free" aspect was the requirement of requiring the
> creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to
> OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms,
> I would regard it as non-free.
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
> create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
> requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create/distribute
> derivative works.
I for
Hi,
Francesco Poli schrieb:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:23:08 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> [...]
>> *If* the clause really requires surrendering copyright in order to
>> create and distribute a derivative work, then it's non-free since it
>> requires a fee in exchange for the permission to create
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:23:53AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by
4 matches
Mail list logo
