|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:30:59 -0500 |
"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXCopyr.usenet.us.com> wrote in message news:gnrq16$77q$1@blue.rahul.net...
Nonsense, they are giving it away as in there is no charge and there is no funding of the author by the users. A requirement to publish some source prior to being allowed to pass the free code on to others is akin to making the user swing a dead cat over his head and bow to Mecca before doing the same. Such an action achieves the same level of benefit to others."amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:I think that you are misreading the situations. Certainly a copyright owner who is selling access to his work is not interested in giving it away. That makes sense. But the BusyBox authors are totally willing to give their work away and have been doing so for years. The only thing that they are hammering their users in regard to is for not publishing the acknowledgement and code itself on the user's own site....No, they are not giving it away. They are giving permission to others to use their work only so long as the others abide by their conditions. As soon as the other person violates these condition, the permission is withdrawn. This is not the same as "giving it away". A better term is "licensing'.
The fourth sentence I quoted above is better rewritten thus: But the BusyBox authors are totally willing to license their work and have been doing so for years.
They give it away.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |