Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code
From: Peter T. Breuer (ptb_at_lab.it.uc3m.es)
Date: 02/02/05
- Next message: Amir Michail: "Collaboration on the Stabilizer?"
- Previous message: Bob Hauck: "Re: Printing to serial console"
- In reply to: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Next in thread: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Reply: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Reply: Nix: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:20:26 +0100
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
> news:plo6d2-ngm.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es...
> > David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> >> Giving someone a copy of some information with no restrictions on what
> >> they can do with it is the definition of making something "public".
> >
> > No it isn't.
>
> It is.
No it isn't. There are already restrictions on what they can do with
it. For a start they can't distribute it (the author has copyright).
There are other things they can't do, like maybe use it in their own
work too. Check ze law, baybee.
> >> Unless
> >> everyone who has the information is under your control or otherwise
> >> restricted from distributing it, the information is public.
> >
> > No it isn't.
>
> It is.
Well, I meant to contradict only the unconditional sense of your statement
(if it has one) because as I said, your statement is (a) hypothetical,
and (b) the hypothesese are not satisfied:
> > People can see it, but they are only licenced to use and do with it
> > under the terms of the license. Everyone who gets it is thus "under
> > your control".
>
> This assumes that you are the one who chose the license. This is not the
> case in the current situation.
?? The original author has originally chosen the licence. You got the
code from him under licence, therefore you chose the licence (your choice
was: agree to it or don't - and you agreed).
> > (Do you know what "in the public domain" is? I assume you do! So why
> > put up this nonsense?)
>
> The term "public domain" is very different from "public".
Indeed. One is tightly defined, and the other is a meaningless
undefined noise.
> One refers to
> ownership, the other to access.
I am willing to let you define your terms, but bear in mind that they
are yours!
Let's go along with this definition of yours.
> He is not concerned with who owns his code
> but with who can see it and use it.
Nix. Meaningless.
> Works that are available to the public
> may or may not be in the public domain.
True, but vacuuosly so.
> Once a work is in possession of one person who is not under your control
> who has no legal restrictions on what they can do with it,
Unfulfilled hypothesis, theferore rest elided.
Peter
- Next message: Amir Michail: "Collaboration on the Stabilizer?"
- Previous message: Bob Hauck: "Re: Printing to serial console"
- In reply to: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Next in thread: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Reply: David Schwartz: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Reply: Nix: "Re: GNU License Question, On Change of Code"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
