Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!lucy.swin.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au!news.apana.org.au!cantor.edge.net.au!news.mira.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!news.itd.umich.edu!usenet From: Timothy Watson <tmwatson@umich.edu> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: GPL Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 21:08:42 -0500 Organization: University of Michigan Lines: 34 Message-ID: <32FBE02A.2F2C@umich.edu> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <32F167BB.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <0rnuc5.3e1.ln@zen> <5cvodo$hme@omega.gmd.de> <5db0q8$1f6i@usenet1y.prodigy.net> <5dd2mc$ad5@omega.gmd.de> <32FB2E38.7526@umich.edu> Reply-To: tmwatson@umich.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: aha429.ccs.itd.umich.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:157067 comp.os.linux.networking:67750 comp.os.linux.advocacy:82993 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2402 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:52270 comp.os.os2.advocacy:266570 Timothy Watson wrote: > > Holger Veit wrote: > > has a good chance of being void, namely then if it can be shown - and this > > is IMHO possible without a difficulty - that it is not common practice to > > request that developers must release their intellectual property (and it > > is at least partly an own work for the modified parts) if they use certain > > *published* work. It is a matter of debating how much parts need to be > > Remember BSD - Lite? AT&T still OWNED the source code, no matter how > widely it had been *published*, and therefore the use of > its proprietary code was restricted when it was sold to Novell. You > could not have ANY of this code in your work that could be shown to > be the restricted code of AT&T origin. (NOTE the example, it should > be familiar to anyone who runs BSD). > -Tim WAtson And I should say, I saw the follow-up: That's irrelevent. Just a song-and-dance about the point. The REAL point is --- What the heck are you saying when talking about *published* work? Under what conditions does a company/individual lose the right to control the redistribution of modified versions of his/her work. More examples: IBM BIOS Source Code, Soon-to be released Caldera OpenDos source What do you think gives the company that sells the modified source code the RIGHT to base their work on copyrighted code? - Even if they did add extensions? -Tim Watson